{"id":261937,"date":"2022-02-18T18:04:07","date_gmt":"2022-02-18T12:34:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=261937"},"modified":"2022-02-20T19:53:45","modified_gmt":"2022-02-20T14:23:45","slug":"live-xii-competition-commission-of-india-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2022","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/18\/live-xii-competition-commission-of-india-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2022\/","title":{"rendered":"Live | XII Competition Commission of India – Hidayatullah Memorial National Moot Court Competition 2022"},"content":{"rendered":"
The CCI – HNMCC 2022 is inspired by the ideals of late Hon\u2019ble Justice Mr M. Hidayatullah, who firmly believed in the potential of young lawyers and how important it is to groom them at a young age. In furtherance of Justice Hidayatullah\u2019s principles, the CCI – HNMCC 2022 is being conducted to primarily instil critical thinking and ignite law students\u2019 minds to provide them with a starting point in their upcoming law careers.<\/div>\n

The competition is organised under the able guidance of Prof. (Dr.) V.C. Vivekanandan, Vice-Chancellor, whose conviction to transform HNLU into a hub of intellectually stimulating legal activities is firm. The central theme of CCI – HNMCC \u201922 is \u2018Competition Law\u2019, one of the contemporary and relatively unexplored practices in the Indian legal regime. The moot proposition revolves around the acquisition of a company that specialises in chip manufacturing using Artificial Intelligence applications in the defence sector. The acquiring company is a multi-national conglomerate in chip manufacture used in anti-ballistic missiles and air defence systems. The moot proposition encapsulates some of the complex issues related to mergers and acquisitions in the defence and technology domain.<\/p>\n

The Moot Court Society and the Organising Committee invite you to be a part of the 12th edition of HNMCC. Let the competition begin!<\/p>\n

ITINERARY<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Day 1<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

5:30 PM<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0 DIGITAL ONBOARDING OF PARTICIPANTS, FACULTY MEMBERS AND GUESTS
\n6 PM<\/strong><\/span> COMMENCEMENT OF INAUGURAL EVENT<\/p>\n

8:00 PM<\/strong><\/span> RESEARCHER TEST
\n8:35 PM <\/span><\/strong>\u00a0DRAW OF LOTS
\n9:00 PM <\/strong><\/span>\u00a0EXCHANGE OF MEMORIALS BY HNLU STUDENT OC MEMBERS<\/p>\n

Day 2<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

9:30 AM<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0JUDGES BRIEFING (I) FOR PRELIMINARY ROUNDS
\n10:00 AM<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0PRELIMINARY ROUND 1A
\n11:15 AM<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0JUDGES BRIEFING (II) FOR PRELIMINARY ROUNDS
\n11:45<\/strong><\/span> PRELIMINARY\u00a0ROUND 1B
\n1:00 PM<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0BREAK
\n1:30 PM<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0PRELIMINARY ROUND 2A
\n2:45 PM<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0PRELIMINARY ROUND 2B
\n5:00 PM<\/strong><\/span> DECLARATION OF RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY ROUNDS
\n6:00 PM<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0JUDGES BRIEFING – QUARTERFINALS ROUND
\n6:30 PM<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0QUARTERFINAL ROUND
\n9:30 PM<\/strong><\/span> DECLARATION OF RESULTS OF QUARTERFINALS ROUNDS<\/p>\n

Day 3<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

10:00 AM<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0JUDGES BRIEFING \u2013 SEMI-FINAL ROUNDS
\n10:30 AM<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0SEMI-FINAL ROUNDS
\n1:30 PM<\/strong><\/span> RESULTS OF SEMI-FINAL ROUNDS
\n1:30 PM<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0BREAK
\n3:00 PM<\/strong><\/span> JUDGES BRIEFING – FINAL ROUNDS
\n3:15 PM<\/strong><\/span> FINAL ROUNDS
\n5:15 PM<\/strong><\/span> VALEDICTORY CEREMONY<\/p>\n

DAY 1<\/h3>\n

Inaugural Ceremony<\/h3>\n

5:30 PM<\/span><\/strong> The digital onboarding for the 12th Justice Hidayatullah Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2022 commences.<\/p>\n

6:29 PM<\/strong><\/span> The onboarding process is successfully completed, thereby leading to the commencement of the Inaugural ceremony.<\/p>\n

6:30 PM<\/strong><\/span> The co-hosts, Radhika Ghosh and Shubham Jindal, start off the ceremony by welcoming the honourable panellists, the Chief Guest, alumni, participants, press members and the audience.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

6:32 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Dean-Post Graduate (Law), Prof. (Dr.) Vishnu Konoorayar takes the stage to start off the Inaugural Ceremony with the Welcome Address. He swiftly prefaces the Moot Competition with its history and HNLU’s prestige.<\/p>\n

6:36 PM<\/strong><\/span> The co-convener of the Student Organizing Committee, Deeksha Singh, is invited on the Stage to address the audience. She talks about the prestigious journey of the HNMCC over the years. Further referring to the unprecedented shift of the event to a virtual platform, she confidently states that this shift does not diminish the value, even in the slightest, that the HNMCC experience holds in the legal realm.<\/p>\n

6:42 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Honourable VC of HNLU, Prof. (Dr.) V C Vivekanandan is invited to address the audience. He starts his beautiful speech with the quote, “When the going gets tough, the tough get going”. He points out the significance of Competition Law- the theme of this moot. He sheds light on its relevancy in the modern legal spectrum, and why it makes the perfect choice for the HNMCC.<\/p>\n

6:50 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Guest of Honour, Ms Aishwarya Bhati- Additional Solicitor General of India, takes the stage for her address. She begins by acknowledging the panellists and the audience. She then moves on to delve into the intricacies of the Competition Law and shows her appreciation for the proposition for the current edition of the HNMCC. She humorously mentions her mild jealousy of the participating teams and the judges who would get this great opportunity of diving into the arguments over this insightful and exciting moot proposition. She concludes her speech with the statement “what it takes to be a proficient lawyer is a fierce mind, a courageous heart and a competitive spirit.”<\/p>\n

6:58 PM<\/strong><\/span> Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Chairperson of CCI and the Chief Guest of this ceremony begins his address by expressing his pleasure in being a part of HNMCC. He continues his address with the need for competition. He goes on to highlight the various ventures of CCI that have helped CCI make its name in the legal fraternity, not only nationally, but all over the globe. He concludes his address by appreciating HNMCC for its novel approach of igniting conversations about Competition law and how this moot would be an inspiring experience for all participants and would open up career prospects for them in the Competition Law arena.<\/p>\n

7:17 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Ceremony approaches its end with the vote of thanks relayed by Prof. (Dr.) Uday Shankar, Registrar of HNLU. He cordially expresses his gratitude to all the guests of the event and panellists for sparing their precious time to address the participants and audience. He follows with thanking the sponsor AZB & Partners and knowledge partner EBC, for joining hands with HNLU to help organize this prestigious moot event.<\/p>\n

7:24 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The Inaugural ceremony comes to an end with the host delivering the final thanks to the participants and the audience for attending the event.<\/p>\n

8:00 PM<\/strong><\/span> The researcher test commences.<\/p>\n

Day 2<\/h3>\n

Preliminary Round 1A<\/h3>\n

Court Room 1A<\/h4>\n

10:04 AM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk briefs the participants on the miscellaneous guidelines.
\n10:06 AM<\/strong><\/span> The 1st speaker from the petitioner’s side commences his speech by first giving a brief account of the facts of the case.
\n10:09 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel then proceeds with his arguments in a structured manner by bringing to the notice of the bench the various statutes that help solidify his case.<\/p>\n

10:11 AM<\/strong><\/span> The judge asks for clarification on a particular clause stated by the counsel relating to Section 5 of the Competition Act. The counsel seems taken aback by his question. He, however, attempts to answer the expanding thread of questions. Despite his best efforts, the judge is not satisfied with his response.
\n10:18 AM<\/strong><\/span> Due to the paucity of time, the counsel is advised to move forward with his submissions.<\/p>\n

10:21 AM<\/strong><\/span> The bench puts forth another line of questioning based on the statutory provisions and the facts of the case. Seemingly flustered with the continuous cross-questioning by the bench, the counsel attempts to answer the questions trying to make his stance clear and moves on to conclude his arguments.
\n10:26 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from the 1st team concludes his arguments.
\n10:27 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 from the 1st team begins his speech and starts out by stating what he believes are the crucial facts of the case.
\n10:31 AM<\/strong><\/span> He is interrupted mid-speech by the bench regarding a clarification concerning some detail of the facts mentioned by him.<\/p>\n

10:32 AM<\/strong><\/span> The bench asks the speaker to elaborate as to how a particular case cited by him relates to the case in hand. The speaker tackles the question well by providing a seemingly acceptable explanation.
\n10:36 AM<\/strong><\/span> With a limited degree of success, the speaker manages to answer the bench’s questions. However, he is again encountered with a series of questions by the bench demanding an explanation on a statutory provision.<\/p>\n

10:39 AM<\/strong><\/span> The respected judge asking the questions does not agree with the reasoning provided by him and states examples that weaken the counsel’s case. The relentless cross-questioning is interrupted by the court clerk to remind of the paucity of time. The speaker then goes on to conclude his speech.
\n10:46 AM<\/strong><\/span> The 1st speaker from team 32 goes on to first define the structure of her arguments and then briefs her submissions to the court. She cites cases that she believes substantiate her stance.
\n10:52 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker brings to the notice of the bench some crucial facts and backs them with further case laws.<\/p>\n

10:55 AM<\/strong><\/span> After the speaker is done with her submissions, the judges put forth their respective questions and demand certain explanations based on the facts stated by her. With an apparent fall in her confidence, she goes on to answer the questions. However, the judges do not look completely satisfied with her shaky responses.
\n11:02 AM<\/strong><\/span> Due to time constraints, the cross-questioning comes to end and the speaker is asked to conclude her speech.
\n11:03 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 from team 32 commences his speech.<\/p>\n

11:07 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel faces certain network issues while presenting his case. However, they get resolved soon after without leading to any substantial inconvenience.
\n11:10 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel moves on to cite certain case laws to back his case.<\/p>\n

11:12 AM<\/strong><\/span> He concludes his submissions after which he is met with the questions put forth by the bench. The series of questions continue, however, the counsel is able to confidently respond to them.
\n11:20 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel seems taken aback and confused by an analogy given by the bench which weakens his stance. The bench continues with its questions even after the court clerk specifies that the counsel has exceeded his time limit.
\n11:23 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel concludes his speech.
\n11:24 AM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk suggests to skip rebuttals due to the paucity of time. However, saying that rebuttals are a legal right of the counsels, the bench allows for the same.
\n11:25 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 of Team 01 goes on to give his rebuttals.
\n11:28 AM<\/strong><\/span> With the completion of the rebuttals by Speaker 1, the first preliminary round concludes.<\/p>\n

Court Room 2A<\/h4>\n

10:02 AM<\/span> <\/strong>The judges and all the participants have arrived. The participants are made aware of the rules.<\/p>\n

10:03 AM<\/strong><\/span> The court is in session. Speaker 1 of T02 starts on a confident note and elaborates on the laws relevant to her case.
\n10:09 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 of T02 makes her second submission.
\n10:12 AM<\/strong><\/span> The judge poses a question regarding the conflict between the right to privacy and the right to defend in the counsel’s case. The counsel does not seem to have answered the judge’s questions satisfactorily.<\/p>\n

10:16 AM<\/strong><\/span> The line of questing does not appear to be ending soon.
\n10:21 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel politely requests for an extension of time for concluding her arguments and is allowed the same by the panel.
\n10:23 AM<\/strong><\/span> The continuous questioning by the panel does not cease even during the concluding remarks of the counsel.<\/p>\n

10:26 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 of T02 calmly yet firmly starts addressing her issues, elaborating her arguments with the appropriate emphasis on the important parts of the issues.
\n10:32 AM<\/strong><\/span> The judge intervenes and asks for various clarifications.<\/p>\n

10:35 AM<\/strong><\/span> As the speaker proceeds to her next issue, she is immediately halted by the judge for a question.
\n10:42 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 of T02 confirms with the panel if there are any further questions on which she is required to give a clarification.
\n10:43 AM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk steps in and reminds of the time constraints. However, the speaker is allowed time by the judge to complete her arguments on the respective issues.
\n10:46 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel concludes her arguments.
\n10:46 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 of T3 takes the stage and politely presents his case by stating the issues at hand.
\n10:47 AM<\/strong><\/span> The judge asks the respondent’s counsel to directly focus on the contentions.
\n10:56 AM<\/strong><\/span> The judge points out to Speaker 2 of T31 for his usage of erroneous vocabulary in respect of the Competition law. The speaker swiftly justifies his vocabulary on jurisprudential grounds.<\/p>\n

11:02 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel seeks permission to move on to the next issue with no further questions being asked by the panel.
\n11:03 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel humbly pleads for an extension of time and the panel allows it.<\/p>\n

11:07 AM<\/strong><\/span> The judge points out the lack of evidence in the counsel’s argument. To overcome the hurdle, the counsel cites an authoritative case in this respect. However, the judge seeks circumstantial evidence.<\/p>\n

11:09 AM<\/strong><\/span> The panel asks the counsel to conclude his arguments.
\n11:09 Speaker 2 of T31 commences his arguments.
\n11:15 The counsel continues his speech with no major interruptions by the honourable bench.
\n11:19 AM<\/strong><\/span> There is a minor interruption as the counsel faces connectivity issues. The problem is resolved speedily with the effective coordination of the team members.
\n11:21 AM<\/strong><\/span> The judge seeks clarification whether the counsel has the power to administer an oath under the Oaths Act, 1969, to which the speaker fails to respond.
\nSpeaker 2 concludes his arguments.
\n11:25 AM<\/strong><\/span> The rebuttal starts from T02 and Speaker 2 comes to the stage. Only 30 seconds are allowed for the rebuttal question.
\n11:25 AM<\/strong><\/span> The second speaker of T31 effectively responds to the rebuttal.
\n11:26 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 of T02 seeks permission to represent a rebuttal. The court clerk intervenes and reminds of the time constraints. Hence, the panel denies permission.
\n11:28 AM<\/strong><\/span> The panel concludes the round. Speaker 1 of T31 asks for feedback but is refused the same as the rules of the competition do not allow it.
\n11:28 AM<\/strong> <\/span>The preliminary round 1 has officially ended.<\/p>\n

Court Room 3A<\/h4>\n

10:01 AM<\/strong><\/span> The participating teams and honourable judges assemble on the virtual platform to commence the preliminary rounds.
\n10:05 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from Team 3 acknowledges the counsel and proceeds to present her opening statements. The Counsel moves forward to present two submissions to strengthen her arguments.<\/p>\n

10:10 AM<\/strong><\/span> The honourable judges pose questions pertaining to the relevant facts to which the counsel seems to answer appropriately.<\/p>\n

10:14 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel proceeds with her submissions before facing a question from the judge. She presents a satisfactory answer and carries on to the next issue.
\n10:21 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is posed with a new line of questioning from the judges to which she tries her best to respond. After a few counter questions, the judges ask for relevant Indian judicial decisions to which she pleads ignorance.<\/p>\n

10:28 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel passes the stand to her co-Counsel after concluding her arguments. The second Counsel proceeds to deliver the next two submissions.
\n10:30 AM<\/strong><\/span> The honourable judges present a new line of questioning seeking clarification over her submissions.
\n10:34 AM<\/strong><\/span> After concluding the line of questioning, the counsel is directed by the judges to carry forward with her submissions.<\/p>\n

10:38 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel continues to present her final submission but gets interrupted by the court clerk indicating the end of her speaking time. The counsel continues with her submissions despite repeated reminders in the chatbox. She is asked to conclude her submission by the honourable judges.
\n10:41 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel concludes her submissions and presents her prayer before the honourable bench.
\n10:43 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from Team 30 representing the defendants, commences his opening statements.
\n10:46 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is asked for a conceptual clarification from the esteemed bench to which he proceeds to answer. The bench indicates their satisfaction and directs the counsel to proceed.
\n10:51 AM<\/strong><\/span> The honourable judge directs a question regarding the relevancy of the counsel’s example in his arguments. The counsel justifies the same and attempts to respond to a new line of questioning.<\/p>\n

10:57 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is further grilled by the honourable bench but due to the paucity of time, the counsel pleads to conclude his final submission.<\/p>\n

11:01 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel manages to conclude his submissions swiftly while responding to a few more counter questions.
\n11:03 AM<\/strong><\/span> The second counsel proceeds to put forward her submissions.
\n11:05 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is sought clarification on a judicial decision in her arguments but the honourable judge seems unimpressed with the counsel’s reply.<\/p>\n

11:11 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel moves forward to present her third submission after facing no counter-question from the honourable bench.
\n11:17 AM<\/strong><\/span> The honourable judges direct a line of questioning as the speaking time comes to an end. After responding to the questions, the counsel puts forward her prayer before the honourable bench.
\n11:19 AM<\/strong><\/span> The honourable bench allows Team 03 to put forward limited rebuttal questions to the defending counsel.<\/p>\n

11:24 AM<\/strong><\/span> The defending counsels answer the two rebuttal questions directed towards them, subsequent to which the first round of the preliminary round is concluded by the court clerk.<\/p>\n

Court Room 4A<\/h4>\n

10:05 AM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk begins by briefing the participants on the guidelines and time limits.
\n10:06 AM<\/span><\/strong> The Judges ask the first speaker to begin with their opening statement.<\/p>\n

10:07 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 for Team 4 begins laying out her submissions with a repetition of the facts of the case.
\n10:11 AM<\/strong><\/span> After briefly stating the facts of the case, the counsel begins with her submissions. She is concise so far.
\n10:15 AM<\/span><\/strong> One of the Judges interrupts her during her submissions and asks for a precedent along with citation to support her statements, and further demands the mention of the same in their memorial. The speaker submits the same without an issue.<\/p>\n

10:18 AM<\/strong><\/span> There is another question from one of the judges on a point of statutory law. The counsel answers and proceeds with her submissions.
\n10:21 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel concludes her submissions and introduces her co-counsel, who takes over.<\/p>\n

10:26 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Panel questions the second counsel who seems fazed by the question, but stands his ground by citing a precedent, after which he continues with his submissions.
\n10:30 AM<\/strong><\/span> The judges ask another question regarding the statutory provision. The counsel’s answer seems to have satisfied them. The question burgeons, which he seems to answer unfazed. He is allowed to proceed.
\n10:36 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is allowed by the judges to cite his prayer. He concludes his arguments.<\/p>\n

10:37 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 for Team 29 begins with his submissions. Upon inquiring the judges on the need to repeat the facts prior to presenting his arguments, he is asked by the judges to cite five facts that may support his side. The counsel is allowed to proceed with his issues afterwards.
\n10:45 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel continues on the issues. He seems articulate, and there are no enquiries from the judges so far.
\n10:50 AM<\/strong><\/span> The panel questions the counsel, to which he answers citing the points of law. The counsel rests his case thereafter.<\/p>\n

10:56 AM<\/strong><\/span> The second counsel continues with his submissions. There are no questions from the judges yet.
\n11:01 AM<\/strong><\/span> The honourable bench questions the counsel, to which he seems a little flustered, but answers nonetheless. A counter-question follows but his answer is interrupted and he is allowed to continue with his arguments instead.<\/p>\n

11:10 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel concludes his arguments, and upon approval from the bench, cites his prayer.
\n11:11 AM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk informs that there are only 2 minutes left for rebuttals. Speaker 1 for Team 4 begins with her rebuttals.
\n11:14 AM<\/strong><\/span> After multiple reminders of the breach of time, the speaker concludes. There are no rebuttals from Team 29.
\n11:16 AM<\/strong><\/span> With this, the first round of the preliminary round comes to an end. <\/span><\/p>\n

Court Room 5A<\/h4>\n

10:01 AM<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0 Speaker 1 of Team 5 begins her speech and asks permission to dive right into the arguments due to paucity of time.
\n10:03 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Appellant side uses the Competition Act to solidify their arguments.
\n10:05 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Counsel appears to be extremely confident and the panel seems convinced by her contentions.<\/p>\n

10:06 AM<\/strong><\/span> One of the judges interrupts the speaker and seeks clarification on the applicability of Section 2(L)
\n10:07 The judge cross-questions by asking the definition of “Company”, which the counsel manages to tackle well. The judge seems unsatisfied and asks for some elaboration. The counsel remains unfaltered by this unexpected exchange.
\n10:10 AM<\/strong><\/span> The bench poses another question, with an example, to seek more clarification on the appellant side’s argument.
\n10:11 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel uses a lot of verbatim quotes from relevant judgements in her arguments.
\n10:14 AM<\/strong><\/span> The panel puts forth a question regarding one of the cases quoted by the speaker. The speaker is questioned about certain essentials of the clause mentioned by her.
\n10:17 AM<\/strong><\/span> The court master points that the speaker’s time has elapsed.<\/p>\n

10:17 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker continues to speak despite the intimation and the panel indulges in cross-questioning as well.
\n10:18 AM<\/strong><\/span> The court master continually points that the time has elapsed, but to no avail.
\n10:19 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker is given permission to make the final submission.
\n10:19 AM<\/strong><\/span> The bench asks the speaker to move on from stating basic rights and to clarify how her argument is supported by the Competition Act.
\n10:21 AM<\/strong><\/span> The court master points out that the additional time has elapsed.
\n10:21 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 of Team 5 ends her speech.<\/p>\n

10:22 AM<\/strong><\/span> Next, Speaker 2 of Team 5 begins her speech by furthering the arguments presented by her co-counsel.
\n10:23 AM<\/strong><\/span> One of the judges asks the speaker to elaborate on the factors to be considered while applying the clause mentioned by the speaker.
\n10:24 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker seems to falter at this point but manages to continue with his response.
\n10:25 AM<\/strong><\/span> The judge further questions the facts laid down by the speaker; the speaker tackles the question well, but is met with more cross-questioning. The other judge quotes from the compendium shared on the screen and points out the speaker’s argument.<\/p>\n

10:28 AM<\/strong><\/span> The judge points a contradiction found in the memorial submitted and the arguments presented. The speaker apologizes for the inconsistency. The judge demands clarification on which contention the bench should consider. The Speaker clarifies that the bench should consider the contention presented in their current submission.
\n10:30 AM<\/strong><\/span> The bench poses more questions, attacking the speaker’s argument.
\n10:32 AM<\/strong><\/span> The panel intimates that the speaker is out of time, while the court clerk points that she still has 2 minutes left.
\n10:34 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel asks permission to move to the prayer, which the bench denies. Thereby, the side appellant rests their case.
\n10:35 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 of Team 28 is asked to take the stage, but she seems to be facing an audio connectivity issue.
\n10:37 AM<\/strong><\/span> The second speaker of the team is asked to be ready to present the arguments as the first is struggling with connectivity issues.
\n10:38 AM<\/strong><\/span> The second speaker begins with her arguments.
\n10:38 AM<\/strong><\/span> It is evident that the speaker was not prepared to tackle this unforeseen situation and struggles with her presentation.
\n10:39 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker puts forth a plethora of previous cases to substantiate her arguments
\n10:41 AM<\/strong><\/span> The judge asks a two-fold question to the speaker; the speaker is visibly nervous.
\n10:42 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel stutters through her speech but is able to present her arguments.
\n10:43 AM<\/strong><\/span> The bench asks for an Indian case law with regards to the matter at hand. The counsel quotes 3 cases and moves on with her submission.
\n10:45 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is interrupted again and the essence of the first argument laid by her is questioned.
\n10:46 AM<\/strong><\/span> The panel and the counsel engage in a lot of back and forth.
\n10:47 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel, after the continuous cross-questioning, now moves to the second issue.
\n10:49 AM<\/strong><\/span> One of the judges asks the counsel to stick to their burden of proof instead of giving facts to prove an already proven argument.
\n10:50 AM<\/strong><\/span> The judge further asks the speaker to substantiate her assertion using Section 19 of the Act. The speaker seems a little shaken.
\n10:52 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker then moves on to the next issue.<\/p>\n

10:52 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker then moves on to the next issue.
\n10:53 AM<\/strong><\/span> The bench asks the counsel as to which market was affected by the anti-competitive actions. The speaker tries to answer but fails. She then asks the honourable judge to elaborate the question. The speaker falters and tries to answer. The judges ask the speaker to stop and move to the next issue.
\n10:58 AM<\/strong><\/span> The co-counsel is supposed to present the remaining issues.
\n10:59 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 now begins with her speech.
\n11:00 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker points out some flaws in the arguments from the appellant’s side.
\n11:01 AM<\/strong><\/span> The bench asks for the section where “company” and “body corporate” are mentioned, and if it is defined separately.
\n11:02 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker is again questioned regarding the location of the definition, which she fails to recall and thus apologizes.<\/p>\n

11:04 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel reiterates the last portion of her submission since of the judges fail to hear her speech owing to technical issues.
\n11:05 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel proceeds to the next argument.
\n11:06 AM<\/strong><\/span> The panel asks the speaker to wrap up her submission within the next 2 minutes.
\n11:07 AM<\/strong><\/span> Technical issues continue to plague Speaker 1 of Team 28.<\/p>\n

11:08 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Speaker continues to push through with her presentation on the last issue.
\n11:09 AM<\/strong><\/span> She is asked by the judges to “quickly wind up” yet again.
\n11:09 AM<\/strong><\/span> One of the judges interrupts her to cross-question and asks her to conclude with that.
\n11:10 AM<\/strong><\/span> The bench again asks the counsel to skip the prayer.
\n11:11 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 of Team 5 starts with the rebuttals. They have reserved 2 minutes for the same.
\n11:13 AM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel for the Competition Commission presents their surrebuttals. They have reserved one minute.
\n11:14 AM<\/strong><\/span> The panel points out that the time for their surrebuttals has elapsed, and the speaker abruptly ends her speech.
\n11:14 AM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk requests the participants to leave the meeting, thus marking the conclusion of the first preliminary round.<\/p>\n

Court Room 6A<\/h4>\n

9:49 AM<\/strong> <\/span>The Court Clerk asks the participants to turn on their cameras.
\n10:04 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Court Clerk further explains that only the researchers are allowed to share the screen on behalf of their respective teams.
\n10:10 AM<\/strong><\/span> The moot begins as Speaker 1 from Team 07 introduces himself.
\n10:11 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 asks permission to give a brief overview of the facts of the case. He is granted 30 seconds for the same. He obliges.<\/p>\n

10:12 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Speaker confidently presents his first submission with permission of the panel.<\/p>\n

10:16 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Panel asks the speaker to clarify on the authority under which they approach the court, and further, asks for relevant laws. The speaker confidently responds.
\n10:17 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker cites several case laws to solidify his stance.<\/p>\n

10:20 AM<\/strong><\/span> The panel asks the Speaker to clarify certain specific statutory provisions to back his claim that evidence collected illegally should be rendered inadmissible, with the help of case laws. The Speaker fails to provide a satisfactory answer.
\n10:22 AM<\/strong><\/span> The panel finds an apparent flaw in the memorial submitted by the appellant’s side, upon which they question the Speaker. The speaker seems to be caught off guard and tries to beat around the bush.
\n10:24 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Panel seem unimpressed by the speaker’s response and asks him to proceed with his arguments.<\/p>\n

10:29 AM<\/strong><\/span> As the time has elapsed for Speaker 1 from Team 07, the panel reminds him regarding the same. The Speaker asks the panel to let him briefly summarize his submissions and the panel grants him a minute.
\n10:31 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 wraps up his speech.
\n10:32 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 from Team 07 begins with his speech by confidently highlighting relevant case laws and facts.
\n10:35 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Panel asks the speaker to clarify the concept of the most favoured nation and its relevance with the appellants’ case. The Speaker responds uncertainly. The panel is yet again left unimpressed.
\n10:41 AM<\/strong><\/span> Citing an example of a case law, the speaker now answers a particular question previously posed by the panel.
\n10:43 AM<\/strong><\/span> While the speaker wishes to proceed ahead with the fifth issue, the Panel reminds him that his allotted time is nearing its end. The speaker, with permission, proceeds ahead.
\n10:47 AM<\/strong><\/span> The time is up for Speaker 2 from team 07 while he is answering the panel’s question. He is not given any additional time to proceed with his prayer.<\/p>\n

10:49 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from Team 27 begins her speech by clarifying on the structure of her speech.
\n10:51 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Speaker cites case laws to support their case.<\/p>\n

10:53 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Panel asks the Speaker to define Commission and whether its definition is mentioned in any statute apart from the CCI. The Speaker fails to provide an answer and the panel asks her to continue with her submissions. The Speaker obliges.<\/p>\n

10:56 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Panel asks the speaker to provide a case law regarding a specific fact she has put forth, to which she answers with uncertainty.
\n10:58 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Speaker tries to rebut some arguments put forth by the appellants.<\/p>\n

11:00 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Panel asks the speaker to be mindful of the time, to which the Speaker responds by saying that she still has three more minutes left.
\n11:01 AM<\/strong><\/span> Upon being asked whether the Competition Commission is a Civil Court, the speaker responds hesitatingly but fails to provide an answer to a subsequent question. A few more questions on statutory laws are aimed at the Speaker and she pausingly responds.
\n11:04 AM<\/strong><\/span> Meanwhile, the researcher from the respondent’s side is having problems sharing his screen.
\n11:07 AM<\/strong><\/span> The panel corrects the speaker on a case law cited by her as it seems irrelevant to the case at hand
\n11:10 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Panel reminds the speaker to wind up as her time has elapsed. She obliges and intimates that her teammate will proceed with the third and fourth issues.
\n11:11 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 from Team 27 begins his speech briskly with rebuttals.
\n11:13 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Panel questions the speaker about the relevant market, to which he responds confidently. Further, upon being asked about the consumer base, he responds satisfactorily.
\n11:16 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker proceeds to talk about two specific modes of cartelization to support his stance.
\n11:20 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker moves on to the fourth issue.
\n11:22 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Panel asks the Speaker to provide some international examples to solidify his stance. He answers confidently.
\n11:23 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker asks for an additional minute to finish his submission. The Panel allows.
\n11:25 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Panel reminds the speaker that time management is also an essential part of the moot court and thus he should be mindful of the same.
\n11:26 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker wraps up after finishing his prayer.
\n11:26 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from Team 07 begins with his rebuttals. He shares his screen and highlights a judgement to rebut a claim made by the Respondents. He further goes on to provide three more rebuttals using a few case laws and statutes.
\n11:28 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Court Clerk notifies that the rebuttal time is over.
\n11:30 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from Team 27 begins her surrebuttals. She tries to counter all the rebuttals by the previous speaker.
\n11:33 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Court Clerk notifies that her time is up and with that, she wraps up her speech.
\n11:34 AM<\/strong><\/span> The first round of prelims concludes with a vote of thanks by the Court Clerk.<\/p>\n

Court Room 7A<\/h4>\n

9:56 AM<\/span><\/strong>The Court Clerk asks the team members to turn on their cameras.<\/p>\n

10:06 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Court Clerk introduces herself and greets the participants. She briefs the teams about the time limit of 30 minutes and lays down the rules pertaining to rebuttals.
\n10:07 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from Team 8 introduces herself and her co-counsel.
\n10:08 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Counsel seeks permission to lay down the facts of the case and is allowed 60 seconds for the same.
\n10:10 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Counsel submits her first argument. She looks confident.
\n10:12 AM<\/strong><\/span> She substantiates her arguments with relevant case laws, examples from international markets and the pertinent Acts.
\n10:13 AM<\/strong><\/span> One of the Judges questions her on ‘subsidiary turnover’ and asks her to mention the same from the fact sheet. She asks the Judge to kindly repeat the question.
\n10:15 AM<\/strong><\/span> Although she answers the said question, the Judge does not look satisfied and cross-questions her.
\n10:16 AM<\/strong><\/span> Another question is asked by the Judge which she answers quite confidently.<\/p>\n

10:17 AM<\/strong><\/span> She makes her second submission and substantiates the arguments.
\n10:19 AM<\/strong><\/span> One of the Judges questions her on ‘relevant turnover’. She is further asked to repeat the answer that she has given as a response.<\/p>\n

10:21 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Judge does not look satisfied with her answers at all. Although she is firm, she is now slightly underconfident. The Judge cross-questions her a number of times.<\/p>\n

10:23 AM<\/strong> <\/span>She now moves on to the second issue and contends it on two grounds.
\n10:25 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 is now asked to stop since her time for arguments is up.<\/p>\n

10:26 AM<\/strong> <\/span>One of the Judges goes on to seek some clarifications from her.
\n10:26 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 from Team 8 appears and greets the Bench. She seeks permission to submit her arguments.
\n10:27 AM<\/strong><\/span> She makes her first submission in relation to cartelisation.
\n10:28 AM<\/strong><\/span> One of the Judges questions her on ‘agreement’. She answers the question but does not look quite confident while answering.
\n10:29 AM<\/strong><\/span> She moves on to her second sub-issue.<\/p>\n

10:29 AM<\/strong><\/span> She moves on to her second sub-issue.
\n10:30 AM<\/strong><\/span> One of the Judges questions her on ‘circumstantial evidence’. She cites a case law at this point and the Judge questions her on the bench composition of the said case. She pleads ignorance which seems to have made the Judge look quite unsatisfied.
\n10:32 AM<\/strong><\/span> She continues with her submission.
\n10:33 AM<\/strong><\/span> One of the Judges questions her on ‘relevant market’ vis-a-vis cartelisation.
\n10:34 AM<\/strong><\/span> She confidently cites a relevant case law pertaining to AAEC.
\n10:35 AM<\/strong><\/span> She proceeds with her last submission regarding the criteria for AAEC.
\n10:36 AM<\/strong><\/span> One of the Judges questions her on ‘impact on the consumers’ and the same is reiterated by the other Judge.
\n10:37 AM<\/span><\/strong> She humbly submits her response but appears slightly unsure of it.
\n10:38 AM<\/strong><\/span> She makes another submission and cites the moot proposition. She substantiates it with relevant judicial precedents.
\n10:41 AM<\/strong><\/span> She is reminded of the paucity of time. One of the Judges questions her on ‘dominant player’ which she swiftly responds to by citing Paragraph 10 of the fact sheet.
\n10:43 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from Team 26 appears. She seeks permission to share the compendium. The Court Clerk helps her in sharing the screen.
\n10:44 AM<\/strong><\/span> She thereby begins with her first submission.
\n10:47 AM<\/strong><\/span> She gets questioned by one of the Judges on ‘Financial Year’ and ‘Current Year’ with respect to the calculation of assets and turnover. She answers the question which seems to have been a plus point for her as the Judge is satisfied by her response and does not go for cross-questioning.
\n10:49 AM<\/strong> <\/span>She proceeds with her arguments. However, her voice lags due to poor internet connectivity which she is asked to fix.<\/p>\n

10:51 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 from Team 26 does the needful for her. Speaker 1 now continues.
\n10:52 AM<\/strong><\/span> She is questioned by one of the Judges. She answers it in a poised manner at length and appears fairly assertive. The Judge does look satisfied with the response but asks some related questions.
\n10:55 AM<\/strong><\/span> Based on her arguments, one of the Judges asks her to elaborate on Article 5 of EC Merger. He further asks her about the purpose and object of the same. She answers the question at ease and continues with her arguments.
\n10:57 AM<\/strong><\/span> One of the Judges poses a question to her on the ‘right to advocate’. While responding to it, she mentions ‘reasonable explanation’ and gets cross-questioned.
\n10:59 AM<\/strong><\/span> She departs.
\n11:02 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 from Team 26 appears. She, too, shares the compendium and begins with her arguments. The Team has highlighted the relevant portions of the compendium so as to draw the attention of the Bench.<\/p>\n

11:03 AM<\/strong><\/span> She appears quite sorted regarding the structure of her arguments and begins explaining them.
\n11:05 AM<\/strong><\/span> She gets questioned on ‘competition sensitive’ and ‘price sensitive’ information. It seems like she could answer the question well but is asked another co-related question. She confidently answers it and continues further.<\/p>\n

11:08 AM<\/strong><\/span> Another question is posed to her by one of the Judges related to ‘standardisation’ which she answers well.
\n11:11 AM<\/strong><\/span> She resumes the issue.
\n11:12 AM<\/strong><\/span> One of the Judges asks her to mention any relevant precedent that is binding on India. However, she could not cite any.
\n11:14 AM<\/strong><\/span> While making further submissions, she is reminded of the paucity of time. She requests 30 extra seconds to wrap up the arguments. Although one of the Judges refuses an extension, the other two Judges grant it.
\n11:16 AM<\/strong><\/span> She wraps up and departs.
\n11:17 AM<\/strong><\/span> Rebuttals begin. Speaker 2 from Team 8 humbly submits that certain arguments from Team 26 are not relevant to the case as a whole. She specifies those arguments.
\n11:19 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 from Team 26 clarifies their stance.
\n11:20 AM<\/strong><\/span> The arguments come to an end. The Round stands concluded.<\/p>\n

Court Room 8A<\/h4>\n

10:00 AM<\/strong><\/span> The courtroom awaits the arrival of one of the judges to commence the competition.
\n10:01 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Honourable Judge has arrived and the court clerk takes up the stage to give a briefing regarding the guidelines and indicates the commencement of the competition.
\n10:02 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 for Team 09 has come forward and is introducing the structure of her proceedings.
\n10:05 AM<\/strong><\/span> She asks permission from the panel to put forward the issues of the case.<\/p>\n

10:07 AM<\/strong><\/span> One of the judges interrupts the speaker to inquire about the facts of a case that she has mentioned to be relevant to her issue.<\/p>\n

10:09 AM<\/strong><\/span> The judge cross-questions her and does not seem to be satisfied with the subsequent answer. Lastly, she pleads ignorance.
\n10:12 AM<\/strong><\/span> Once again the speaker is getting questioned by the judge and the same series of heated cross-questioning goes on.
\n10:16 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker is very confidently putting forth her facts and her submission to counter this line of continuous cross-questioning by the judges.
\n10:19 AM<\/strong><\/span> She asks permission from the panel to move forward with her next argument provided that her statements have satisfied the questions of the panel. To this, the judge replied that although the panel is not satisfied but she may move forward due to the paucity of time.<\/p>\n

10:22 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Judges question her about the relevancy of her argument. She tries to answer the questions but the panel stops her and offers her an explanation regarding the issue.
\n10:27 AM<\/strong><\/span> She concludes her submissions and the following speaker takes up the stage.
\n10:27 AM<\/strong><\/span> He asks permission from the dais to cut short the duration of his speech to 3 minutes instead of the allotted time of 5 minutes.
\n10:29 AM<\/strong><\/span> The judge interrupts the speaker as he was about to conclude and asks him to read the particular section that he has mentioned.
\n10:31 AM<\/strong><\/span> As the panel does not seem satisfied by the submissions of the speaker, it keeps on questioning him and pointing out certain flaws in his argument.<\/p>\n

10:34 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Court Clerk interrupts and reminds the speaker of his exhausted time to which he responds by pleading a few more seconds to conclude his arguments.
\n10:34 AM<\/strong><\/span> Panel grants him 45 seconds to conclude his argument and he complies with the same.<\/p>\n

10:37 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 of Team 25 takes up the stage but her voice seems distorted due to network issues at her end.
\n10:38 AM<\/strong><\/span> The panel asks the speaker to mention 5 points based on which she is going to structure her arguments.
\n10:41 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Honourable Judge interrupts the speaker and asks her for clarifications on a particular section of Goods and Services Acts.
\n10:44 AM<\/strong><\/span> The panel is grilling the speaker regarding the loopholes in her argument.
\n10:52 AM<\/strong><\/span> The panel questions her on her interpretations of the cases and sections but she pleads ignorance as she is unaware of the same.
\n10:53 AM<\/strong><\/span> The panel asks her not to waste the time of her co-counsel and move forward with her next argument.
\n10:59 AM<\/strong><\/span> Fierce series of cross-questioning is taking place between one of the judges and the fazed speaker 1 of Team 25
\n11:01 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Court Clerk interrupts the speaker and asks her to conclude as she has exceeded her time limit.
\n11:02 AM<\/strong><\/span> She concludes her argument and the next speaker from Team 25 comes forward now.<\/p>\n

11:04 AM<\/strong><\/span> Within seconds the network issue gets resolved and the proceedings move on further with the judges questioning the speaker in a row.<\/p>\n

11:08 AM<\/strong><\/span> As the series of continuous questions is going on between one of the judges and speaker 2 of Team 25, another judge interrupts to point out the faults in her argument and concludes unsatisfied as the time has already been exhausted.
\n11:12 AM<\/strong><\/span> Although the speaker has already exceeded her allocated time, the panel grants some extra time to speaker 2.
\n11:13 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Court Clerk once again reminds her of the exceeded time and asks her to conclude.
\n11:14 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Preliminary round ends here and the Court Clerk asks the judges to fill out the google form indicating the scores of the respective teams.<\/p>\n

Preliminary Round 1B<\/h3>\n

Court Room 1B<\/h4>\n

11:45 AM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk welcomes the participants and briefs them about the miscellaneous guidelines.<\/p>\n

11:47 AM<\/strong><\/span> A participant asks the court clerk for the division of time allotted to every individual.
\n11:47 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 01 from Team 10 commences his speech by first introducing the case and providing the structure which will be followed by him later in his speech.<\/p>\n

11:49 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel states various facts relating to the case. However, he is later asked by the bench to focus only on the facts which substantiate his case.
\n11:52 AM<\/strong><\/span> The bench asks the counsel to clarify the relationship between the fact and the statute stated by him. He answers the same without any difficulty.
\n11:54 AM<\/strong><\/span> The bench asks the counsel to recheck a provision referred by him. There seems to be a mistake made on the part of the counsel while using that provision in his case and he apologises for the same.<\/p>\n

11:55 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel proceeds with his arguments and uses various statutory provisions to back his case.
\n11:57 AM<\/strong><\/span> The bench seeks clarification from the counsel on certain details. However, the exact question is not clear due to network issues on the part of the bench, and the only word that the counsel is able to comprehend during this entire exchange is ‘jurisdictional threshold’. The counsel then proceeds to define the jurisdictional threshold.
\n12:00 AM<\/strong><\/span> The bench is not satisfied with the source given by the counsel for the definition. The bench asks the counsel to share his screen to reaffirm the same.<\/p>\n

12:02 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is again encountered with a series of questions fundamental to his stance. He seems fazed by the same and apologetically seeks ignorance.
\n12:06 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court asks the counsel for clarification regarding Section 26 of the Competition Act. The counsel seems flustered by the continuous thread of questions. He attempts at answering the bench’s queries, however with little success at impressing the bench.<\/p>\n

12:10 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judges continue to cross-question the counsel which seems to have disconcerted him.
\n12:13 PM<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0Speaker 01 concludes his speech.
\n12:13 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 02 from team 10 commences her speech. She seems concise and confident in her submissions.
\n12:14 PM<\/strong><\/span> She is asked by one of the judges to clarify on the sources referred by her. She answers with seeming ease and moves on with her arguments.
\n12:19 PM<\/strong><\/span> She is interrupted in the middle of her speech by the bench. The bench puts forth a contention regarding her arguments. She answers them by providing miscellaneous examples and then continues with her submissions.<\/p>\n

12:23 PM<\/strong><\/span> The series of cross-questions by the judges continue. The counsel now seems a little disoriented. She, however, manages to answer most of the bench’s questions successfully.
\n12:26 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is asked to end her speech as she has utilised the time allotted to her.
\n12:27 PM<\/strong><\/span> She is graciously given an extension by the bench to present her prayers.
\n12:28 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker concludes her speech.
\n12:29 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 01 from Team 24 commences her speech. She proposes to move directly to the contentions of the case. However, she is asked by the bench to first lay down the substantial facts of the case. This change in the structure of her speech seems to have thrown her off a little.
\n12:33 PM<\/strong><\/span> After stating the facts, the counsel moves on to provide the reasoning behind her stance and brings to the notice of the bench the contentions of the present case.
\n12:36 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel cites case laws that she claims strengthen her case.<\/p>\n

12:37 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel seems taken aback and confused due to her lack of knowledge on the matter of a principle-based question asked by the bench. The counsel apologises for her lack of clarity in that regard. She moves on with her submissions.
\n12:41 PM<\/strong><\/span> She is again subjected to a series of questions by the bench at which she freezes. She apologises to the bench for her lack of clarity and moves on with her contention.<\/p>\n

12:47 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel seems unsettled due to the entire cross-questioning segment.
\n12:50 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel concludes her arguments and invites her co-counsel to the podium.
\n12:51 PM<\/strong><\/span> The co-counsel begins her speech and starts by stating various statutory provisions which substantiate her case.
\n12:53 PM<\/strong><\/span> The co-counsel is presented with a series of questions and clarifications by the bench regarding a principal fact of the case. With a little difficulty, she manages to tackle them.
\n12:55 PM<\/strong><\/span> The co-counsel seems unnerved by the analogy provided by the bench which weakens her stance.
\n12:57 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench points out a technical flaw that has been made by the co-counsel. She seems flustered after the bench questions her further on it, and hence seeks ignorance from them.<\/p>\n

1:01 PM<\/strong><\/span> The co-counsel goes on to cite cases that she claims help strengthen her case.<\/p>\n

1:03 PM<\/strong><\/span> The co-counsel is yet again asked to clarify on a technicality regarding a statutory provision. However, the answer given by her is dismissed by the bench on the grounds of being factually incorrect. She is then asked to present her prayers due to paucity of time.
\n1:07 PM<\/strong><\/span> Since the participants exceeded the allotted time, they are not given the chance to present rebuttals.
\n1:07 PM<\/strong><\/span> The round stands concluded.<\/p>\n

Court Room 2B<\/h4>\n

11:47 AM<\/strong><\/span> The honourable judges and participants have assembled in the virtual courtroom.
\n11:47 AM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk requests the participants to turn on their cameras.
\n11:49 AM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk briefs the courtroom about the rules of the round.<\/p>\n

11:51 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker greets the honourable bench and seeks permission to begin with her opening statement. One of the judges asks the speaker to elucidate on the facts briefly.
\n11:53 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel makes her submissions and solidifies it with relevant provisions of the Competition Act.<\/p>\n

11:55 AM<\/strong><\/span> The esteemed bench asks the counsel whether she has any authoritative backing to her argument, and the same is answered by the counsel with ease.
\n11:57 AM<\/strong><\/span> The honourable judge poses a line of questions to the counsel which puts the latter in a difficult position.
\n12:03 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel has concluded her arguments.
\n12:03 PM<\/strong><\/span> The second speaker of T11 proceeds with the next issue confidently.
\n12:04 PM<\/strong><\/span> The esteemed bench asks the counsel to read out the relevant provisions of the Competition Act. The honourable judge questions the relevance of the provision in respect to the case at hand.<\/p>\n

12:07 PM<\/strong><\/span> One of the honourable judges asks an open-ended question related to Section 41 of the Competition Act. Once the counsel answers, he faces another line of a question seeking clarification on any constructive authority or a specific statute that can help counsel substantiate his argument. The statute referred by the counsel is of another jurisdiction and the honourable judge questions it.
\n12:14 PM<\/strong><\/span> The honourable judge asks about the relevance of CrPC in the present case. The bench brings the counsel’s attention back to the Competition Act and seeks clarification about the procedural structure prescribed under it.
\n12:17 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is yet again asked to read verbatim the provisions of the statute. The honourable bench seems to grill the counsel on the interpretation of the provisions.
\n12:21 PM<\/strong><\/span> The honourable judge asks the counsel to wrap up his arguments keeping in mind the time allotted to him.
\n12:23 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk intimates that the time is up.
\n12:24 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel rests his arguments. Due to the paucity of time, the counsel puts forward his prayer and completes his speech.<\/p>\n

12:26 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from T23 (respondent) takes the stage and seeks permission to reiterate the relevant facts.
\n12:27 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel begins with his two-fold submissions for a better justification of his arguments.
\n12:30 PM<\/strong><\/span> The honourable bench asks Speaker 2 of T23 to read aloud Section 6 of the Competition Act. Further, the bench seeks a technical clarification and asks the counsel to back it with statutory enactments.
\n12:37 PM<\/strong><\/span> Although the counsel fails to answer the questions posed by the honourable bench, the former proceeds to his second issue due to the paucity of time.<\/p>\n

12:37 PM<\/strong><\/span> Although the counsel fails to answer the questions posed by the honourable bench, the former proceeds to his second issue due to the paucity of time.
\n12:41 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel asks the counsel a basic question whether he can put forward evidence to prove the existence of an agreement between the parties involved. The counsel’s answer does not seem to satisfy the honourable judges.
\n12:45 PM<\/strong><\/span> speaker 1 of T23 concludes his arguments.
\n12:48 PM<\/strong><\/span> The co-counsel of T23 takes the proceedings forward and makes his submissions.<\/p>\n

12:56 PM<\/strong><\/span> There is a continuous line of questions regarding the jurisdiction of laws, which the counsel failed to answer satisfactorily.
\n1:00 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk intimates that the time allotted to the counsel is over, and the honourable bench asks the counsel to briefly put forth the next issue.
\n1:02 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel concludes his argument.<\/p>\n

1:05 PM<\/strong><\/span> The rebuttals are refused by the panel.
\n1:05 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The court clerk concludes the round.<\/p>\n

Court Room 3B<\/h4>\n

11:40 AM<\/strong><\/span> The meeting begins as the teams enter the meeting room. We await the judges to begin the proceedings. The teams for this room are Team 12 and Team 21. The hearing is scheduled to begin at 11:45 AM.
\n11:46 AM<\/strong><\/span> Before beginning, the court clerk reiterates the rules to all the participants.
\n11:48 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from Team 12 begins with his submissions. He seeks permission to briefly state the significant facts. He is allowed. Meanwhile, their team researcher presents relevant documents by sharing her screen.
\n11:50 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel proceeds with his first submission.<\/p>\n

11:52 AM<\/strong><\/span> Upon being asked by the Panel about the relevance of his claims and the jurisdiction under which they are pleading their case, the Speaker hesitatingly answers using some statutory provisions.<\/p>\n

11:58 AM<\/strong><\/span> The panel asks about the title of the first issue which is clarified. Upon being asked subsequent questions regarding the same, the Speaker clarifies his stance and further seeks permission to summarize the submissions under the first issue.
\n11:59 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Panel seeks clarification on merger threshold and revenue. The Speaker confidently answers the query.
\n12:00 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel begins with his second submission.
\n12:05 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is directed to finish his speech abruptly as he is reminded by the court clerk that his time is over.
\n12:06 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 from Team 12 begins by stating his arguments.
\n12:07 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel ask multiple questions regarding the issue being discussed related to the Competition Act to which the speaker seems confounded. He collects himself and somehow tries to clarify his stance.<\/p>\n

12:15 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel takes note of the total allotted time that is left for Team 12.
\n12:18 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel seeks clarification on an issue regarding shares that the appellants hold in an entity which the Speaker also referred to as their competition. The Speaker clarifies the doubt using relevant evidences.
\n12:19 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk reminds that the time is over for the second counsel. At his request, the panel give him an additional minute to conclude his submissions.
\n12:21 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel concludes his arguments and puts forth his prayer before the honourable bench.
\n12:22 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 for Team 21 begins with her arguments, clarifying the structure of her speech. She immediately moves to the first issue.
\n12:26 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 explains the relevant provisions of the Competition Act to address the issue using some evidences. She then moves on to the next issue and cites a case law to support her case. The panel seeks clarification upon the same case based on a provision mentioned in the CrPC to which the speaker is not able to establish the relevance of the case.<\/p>\n

12:32 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel asks the speaker to cite any other precedent on the same issue. The speaker goes on to explain another case to support her stance.
\n12:35 PM<\/strong><\/span> A discussion ensues as the panel asks the definition of deposition based upon an argument put forth by the speaker. The speaker tries to answer but the panel seems unimpressed.
\n12:38 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 exceeds her time and is thus stopped by the panel.
\n12:39 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 immediately picks up from where her co-counsel left off and begins with her submissions.<\/p>\n

12:45 PM<\/strong><\/span> Regarding the exchanged information and communication as mentioned in their memorial, the panel ask the counsel to clarify the part of such communication which is anti-competitive in nature. The counsel elaborates upon the same using relevant facts.
\n12:49 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel reminds the speaker of the paucity of time to which the speaker responds by stating that she is finished with both her submissions.
\n12:51 PM<\/strong><\/span> With permission, she moves ahead with her prayer. The panel seek clarification on her prayer which is then clarified by the counsel.
\n12:52 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from Team 12 seeks to rebut the arguments put forth by the Respondents. He is given a minute for the same.
\n12:54 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 concludes his rebuttals.<\/p>\n

12:55 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from Team 21 begins with her surrebuttals and quickly responds to each rebuttal put forth by the Appellants.
\n12:56 PM<\/strong><\/span> The second round of the preliminaries comes to an end with the conclusion of the speech by speaker 2 on behalf of the respondent. The participants are asked to leave the meeting to allow the judges some room for deliberation.<\/p>\n

Court Room 4B<\/h4>\n

11:53 AM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk begins laying out the time limits for the participants. The round begins.
\n11:55 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 for Team 13 begins with his arguments after seeking permission. He is asked by the Honorable Judge to begin with the issues rather than repeating the facts.<\/p>\n

11:57 AM<\/strong><\/span> The honourable judge interrupts him with a question to which he answers without any apparent difficulty; counter questions follow, the answers to which seem to satisfy the bench.
\n12:03 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel moves on to the second issue. The panel and the counsel have an exchange on a particular point of law. The counsel is asked to cite precedent by the judges, which the counsel fails to do. Consequently, the bench insists that their contention is “wholly inconsistent with the law.” The counsel proceeds to cite overseas precedent to the bench. The line of questioning on the particular point continues.
\n12:11 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench does not allow the argument, after which the counsel apologises and seeks permission to move on to his next arguments.
\n12:14 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel fails to provide facts for a case he cited as an answer to the question of the honourable judges, which the Bench believes to be the counsel’s attempt at misleading the Court.
\n12:16 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench seems to be dissatisfied with his answers. The counsel introduces his co-counsel to move on to the third and fourth issues.<\/p>\n

12:19 PM<\/span><\/strong> The second counsel is grilled by the judges. The counsel cites precedent, which seems to have satisfied the bench. A counter-question is asked to the counsel, to which he answers confidently.
\n12:22 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel is relentlessly inquisitive but the counsel is resilient. The panel is consistent with its counter questions. The speaker answers and moves on with his arguments.
\n12:28 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel allows an extension of time for the counsel. He is asked by the honourable bench to distinguish between two concepts, to which he replies and then submits his prayer. He concludes his submission.
\n12:31 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 for Team 20 begins with his arguments. He is asked to focus on the second issue by the panel.<\/p>\n

12:34 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is questioned by the judges on statutory provisions. The honourable judges find his answer unsatisfactorily and incorrect and they proceed to correct him. Counter questions follow. The precedent he cites to answer the counter-question is found erroneous by the honourable bench.
\n12:42 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel enquires once again, and the speaker seems to answer confidently. The judges seem satisfied.<\/p>\n

12:46 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel, with permission from the Bench moves on to the third issue.
\n12:47 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is cross-questioned by the panel, to which he provides answers but the bench seems dissatisfied. The counsel is further questioned on their understanding of a particular concept. The counsel seems to answer confidently.
\n12:54 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is questioned multiple times between his submissions.<\/p>\n

12:58<\/strong><\/span> The second speaker for Team 20 begins with his submissions.<\/p>\n

1:02 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk warns that the team has run out of time following which the speaker is allowed by the judges additional time to give summarise his arguments. The panel questions him during the summary, to which he answers confidently. The bench allows a further extension to summarise the issues.
\n1:06 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Counsel concludes his submissions and cites his prayer.
\n1:07 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The round is declared concluded.<\/p>\n

Court Room 5B<\/h4>\n

11:43 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 of team 14 begins with her speech.
\n11:44 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker starts off with the statement of the case and lists the issues that she would be presenting.
\n11:45 AM<\/strong><\/span> One of the judges asks the speaker to elucidate on why this platform is the right jurisdiction for the matter at hand.
\n11:47 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel makes her first submission regarding the third issue.<\/p>\n

11:48 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker asks the panel to refer to certain paragraphs of the memorial to solidify the arguments presented by the appellant side.
\n11:49 AM<\/strong><\/span> The bench asks the counsel to elaborate on the facts of one of the cases quoted by her. The speaker manages to do it perfectly.<\/p>\n

11:51 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel fumbles a little with her documents and the panel asks her to cite page no. instead of paragraph no. for easy accessibility.
\n11:52 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel keeps struggling with her document but manages.<\/p>\n

11:53 AM<\/strong><\/span> One of the judges asks the reasoning behind a conclusion that the speaker reached upon. She is met with more questioning as the panel does not seem convinced.
\n11:55 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker tries to answer to the best of her capabilities; the judges give no reaction.
\n11:56 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker moves on with her presentation while using many case laws for substantiating her arguments.
\n11:58 AM<\/strong><\/span> The arguments given by the appellants’ side come off in a very fragmented manner.
\n11:58 AM<\/strong><\/span> The bench interrupts the speaker to seek clarification on one of the contentions laid. The speaker falters at the cross-questioning. She is asked to read Section 19(3) for the panel; she obliges. The judges points out a flaw in her argument by quoting from the definition and alleges her of misleading the bench.
\n12:00 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk intimates that the speaker’s 14 minutes allotted time has elapsed. The speaker asks for a 2-minute extension and is granted 1 minute by the bench.
\n12:01 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker deals with her last submission of the fourth issue.
\n12:03 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judge interrupts and requests the counsel to be as crisp and concise as possible.
\n12:04 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker summarises her last argument and convinces the panel using relevant sections of the Act.
\n12:05 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from the appellant side wraps up her speech.
\n12:06 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 now begins with his speech and gives clarification on a contention laid by his co-counsel.
\n12:06 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel starts his submission by presenting issue 2.
\n12:07 PM<\/strong><\/span> A judge seeks elaboration from him over the omission of one factor by the appellant side.
\n12:08 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel manages to answer that in a structured manner by reading out relevant sections and citing case laws.
\n12:11 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel takes up the next issue.
\n12:12 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel, before starting on this submission, asks for an additional 3 minutes but is granted only 1 and a half minutes.
\n12:13 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker takes up the issue in a very structured manner, moving contention by contention.
\n12:15 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel now reads the prayer to the panel.
\n12:16 PM<\/strong><\/span> The appellant side rests their case and thanks the tribunal.<\/p>\n

12:17 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 of Team 19 begins with his speech.
\n12:17 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel seeks permission to directly present his submission on the first issue. He also lays down every contention for the same.
\n12:19 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel interrupts and points out that the respondent’s memorial has a flaw and questions the first argument given.
\n12:21 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker answers the question but is met with some more cross-questioning.
\n12:22 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel is evidently disregarding this argument since the speaker barely manages to give a satisfactory answer.
\n12:23 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker corrects a statement made by him earlier and tries to answer the bench.
\n12:24 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel looks unsatisfied and asks him to move to the next submission.
\n12:26 PM<\/strong><\/span> The presentation of the counsel seems to satisfy the panel this time, with this he ends his speech.<\/p>\n

12:27 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 of Team 19 takes the stage for making his case on the remaining issues.
\n12:28 PM<\/span><\/strong> The counsel starts off by pointing out a flaw in the appellant’s argument. He lifts up his document to the camera to say that the sections in this document go contradictory to the appellant’s argument.<\/p>\n

12:30 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel indulges in extensive explanation to present his arguments.
\n12:31 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker further rebuts quite a few points laid by the appellant side.
\n12:32 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker alleges that the opposition is confused with regards to certain facts, which thus makes their arguments invalid.
\n12:33 PM<\/strong><\/span> One of the judges puts forth a question relating to one of the rebuttals made by the counsel.
\n12:34 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker confidently gives an answer to the bench.
\n12:35 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker from the appellant side asks in the chatbox whether the respondent speaker’s time has elapsed. He gets no response.
\n12:35 PM<\/strong><\/span> The second speaker of the respondent side continues on with his second submission.
\n12:37 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judge asks the speaker to summarise his arguments quickly.
\n12:38 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk here points out that the speaker has more than 8 minutes left.<\/p>\n

12:39 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker is thus allowed to present a substantial view of his arguments.
\n12:40 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker continually puts up rebuttals, while calling the other side’s arguments vague.
\n12:42 PM<\/strong><\/span> The side respondent presents an extensive analysis for their arguments.
\n12:43 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker now seeks permission to move to prayer, but one of the judges presents a question before that.
\n12:44 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel elaborates on his contentions and manages to give the judge a satisfactory answer.
\n12:45 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel says the prayer and concludes his speech.
\n12:46 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk is asked to reiterate the reserved time for rebuttals and surrebuttals, which are 1 minute and 2 minutes respectively.
\n12:46 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 of Team 14 presents the rebuttals. They exceed their time by a few seconds.
\n12:48 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 of Team 19 engages in surrebuttals now and takes up each question raised by the appellant side.<\/p>\n

12:50 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk gives a clarification with regards to the additional time given to speaker 2 from the respondent side.
\n12:52 PM<\/strong><\/span> With this, the participants are asked to leave the meeting to allow judges the space for deliberation. The second preliminary round ends here.<\/p>\n

Court Room 6B<\/h4>\n

11:45 AM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk starts by briefing the instructions.
\n11:46 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from team 15, the appellant’s side is invited to present the case.
\n11:47 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel starts by going over the facts of the case and is set to deal with two issues of their case.
\n11:48 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker confidently asserts the first sub-issue and contention to his arguments related to acquisition and CCI.<\/p>\n

11:50 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker goes on to state the facts of the case without being interrupted by the bench
\n11:52 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker moves on to his next issue by stating relevant statutes of the Competition Act.
\n11:53 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker is notified that 5 minutes of his time have elapsed and that he may hurry with his submissions.
\n11:54 AM<\/strong><\/span> The panel interrupts the counsel and asks him to support his arguments in a logical manner.<\/p>\n

11:55 AM<\/strong><\/span> The bench seems satisfied with his answers and the counsel continues with his second contention.
\n11:57 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker falters a bit as he nears the end of his speech and the judges look advertently interested.
\n11:59 AM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker halts, expecting the bench to cross-question and is met by one posed by the panel.
\n12:01 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench questions him on the authority of the CCI and the speaker initially looks perplexed but answers nonetheless.
\n12:03 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench engages in more cross-questioning.
\n12:03 PM<\/strong><\/span> The clerk notifies end of the allotted speaking time.
\n12:04 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 from team 15 begins her speech with a confident opening statement.
\n12:06 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker brings forth her first argument.
\n12:07 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel proceeds calmly and is confident in her statement of facts.
\n12:08 PM<\/strong><\/span> One of the judges interrupts the counsel and asks her to refrain from the bare statement of facts.
\n12:10 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench engages in a series of cross-questioning with the counsel.
\n12:12 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judges seem dissatisfied with her response but the speaker is confident in her stance.<\/p>\n

12:15 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel asks her to continue and the counsel proceeds with the fourth issue with due permission of the bench<\/p>\n

12:17 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker is notified of her last-minute left at the virtual dais.
\n12:19 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench poses questions in spite of the exhausted time limit.
\n12:20 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker answers to the satisfaction of the judges and at the same time contends the appellant side.
\n12:21 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel asks the counsel to take horizontal arguments rather than vertical ones.
\n12:24 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is further asked to support her case with relevant case laws. The clerk interrupts and asks for the arguments to be concluded within 30 seconds. She wraps up her speech accordingly.
\n12:26 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 of team 15, side of the respondents, proceeds to open the case from their side.
\n12:27 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker clarifies that she would be stating the first two issues of her case and the remaining would be dealt with by her co-counsel.<\/p>\n

12:29 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel seems supremely confident in her stance while stating the arguments.
\n12:30 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench asks for an issue to be clarified by the counsel. Speaker is prepared with her responses as it seems an expected question.
\n12:32 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is once again interrupted by the bench and is seemingly conduced by the question.<\/p>\n

12:35 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel asks the bench to refer to a few specific paragraphs of the memorial from the side of respondents.
\n12:37 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel proceeds with her contention citing relevant provisions and flaws of the opposition. The panel seems satisfied with her contentions.
\n12:39 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is willing to move ahead with the next issue but is interrupted by the bench for cross-questioning.
\n12:41 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker answers the questions of the bench, staying true to her previously stated arguments.
\n12:42 PM<\/strong><\/span> Judges seek clarification on a specific section of the Competition Act and the counsel fails to recall the same.
\n12:44 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel and the bench is notified of the allotted time being over. However, the bench seems keen to pose another question.
\n12:46 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker is allowed to proceed with her next issue after the panel faces some connectivity issues
\n12:48 PM<\/strong><\/span> One of the judges asks her to specify the facts of a particular case law which is allegedly missing from their arguments. The bench stresses upon the comparison of facts of the case.
\n12:49 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel prays for an extension of time to establish her next issue. The judges are kind enough to allow the same for another minute.<\/p>\n

12:51 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel tries to answer the bench but struggles to put forth her point.
\n12:52 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker is asked to finish up in 20 seconds owing to the paucity of time.<\/p>\n

12:53 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel notifies that the co-counsel from the respondents’ side, Speaker 2, would only have 5 minutes to state her contentions.
\n12:54 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 of team 18 begins her speech but is interrupted almost immediately.
\n12:55 PM<\/strong><\/span> The opposition is asked to prepare rebuttals to the counsel’s arguments.
\n12:57 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker confidently and fluently states her arguments.
\n12:58 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is asked by the bench to refer to the Advocates’ Act as contended by the opposition.
\n12:59 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Court clerk notifies everyone of the exceeding team time limit but the counsel does not seem to be completed with her submissions.
\n1:00 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is offered another 1 minute and 30 seconds to wind up the case from the side of respondents.
\n1:02 PM<\/strong><\/span> Another notice is given to the counsel to conclude as hurriedly as possible.
\n1:03 PM<\/strong><\/span> Both sides are offered to present rebuttals within 5 minutes. The appellants’ side begins with their rebuttals.<\/p>\n

1:04 PM<\/strong><\/span> The respondents state their rebuttals and elaborate further on their arguments.
\n1:06 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel yet seeks clarification on certain grounds from the respondents.<\/p>\n

1:07 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker from the appellant’s side presents a few more rebuttals but is interrupted by the respondents.
\n1:09 PM<\/strong><\/span> The clerk announces that the round has been concluded. Participants thank the judges for their patient hearing.<\/p>\n

Court Room 7B<\/h4>\n

11:42 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Court Clerk asks the Speakers to switch on their cameras.
\n11:43 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Judges greet each other and seek certain clarifications from the Court Clerk.
\n11:45 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Court Clerk asks members of Team 16 to ensure that Speaker 2 from Team 16 joins. Speaker 1 clarifies that Speaker 2 is facing certain connectivity issues.
\n11:47 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 from Team 16 joins but the series of technical hurdles continues as she is unable to switch on her camera.
\n11:48 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Court Clerk lays down the rules ensuring that everyone is on the same page.
\n11:49 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from Team 16 appears. She greets the Bench and seeks permission to briefly state the facts of the case. The Judges permit her.
\n11:50 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 shares the compendium and begins with her first issue.
\n11:54 AM<\/strong><\/span> She substantiates her arguments with relevant Sections of the Competition Act, 2002.<\/p>\n

11:55 AM<\/strong><\/span> One of the Judges questions her on Section 20(4) of the Competition Act, 2002. She now appears confused and slightly underconfident. The Judge asks her to read the Section and questions her on the same.
\n11:57 AM<\/strong><\/span> Although she is able to answer the question, the Judge does not look satisfied with her response. She now appears slightly stuck. The Judge questions her once again.
\n11:58 AM<\/strong><\/span> She answers the question but the Judge maintains his position. Nevertheless, the Judge asks her to proceed with her submissions further.<\/p>\n

11:59 AM<\/strong><\/span> She presents another set of arguments and appears confident at the moment. She mentions relevant Sections from the Competition Act, 2002.
\n12:02 PM<\/strong><\/span> While making her submissions, she appears slightly muddled. However, she remains poised.
\n12:03 PM<\/strong><\/span> One of the Judges questions her on ‘authority’ and ‘turnover’. Although she answers the question, she gets cross-questioned and the Judge draws her attention towards the distinction between the words ‘and’ and ‘or’ in a particular section.
\n12:04 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Court Clerk mentions that the speaker’s time for arguments is over. She requests a few extra minutes from the Bench and is granted the same.
\n12:06 PM<\/strong><\/span> One of the Judges questions her. Another Judge adds to the particular question. She answers the questions well and to her relief, the Judges look satisfied.
\n12:07 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from Team 16 departs.
\n12:08 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 from Team 16 appears and greets the Bench. She begins with the third argument from Team 16. She appears confident and unfazed.
\n12:12 PM<\/strong><\/span> One of the Judges asks her to read the first four lines of the moot proposition. She does the needful and is asked to read two more lines from the paragraph.
\n12:13 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The Judge asks her to read Section 3(3) of the Competition Act, 2002. He asks her to now focus on the limits and controls of production and asks her to provide certain explanations. She tries to answer his questions and mentions ‘Protection of IPRs’.
\n12:16 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Judge asks her the source of this particular argument. Further, she is asked to cite this from the fact sheet. She does so but the Judge does not look very contented.
\n12:17 PM<\/strong><\/span> She begins to humbly submit her next argument.
\n12:19 PM<\/strong><\/span> One of the Judges asks her to cite certain judgements pertaining to Section 3(3) of the Competition Act that are relevant to the present case. She could not answer his question properly and mentions that she could not find any. The Judge asks her to consult with the Team’s Researcher or the other Speaker and get back to him further.
\n12:21 PM<\/strong><\/span> As she does not have any time left for arguments, she requests the Bench for two additional minutes. She mentions a case law and one of the Judges asks her to explain the facts of the case.
\n12:22 PM<\/strong><\/span> While she is explaining the facts of that particular case, the Judge mentions that the case technically goes against their case in hand.
\n12:24 PM<\/strong><\/span> One of the Judges adds to the question. She tries to answer it but the Judge does not appear to be pleased. Thereafter, she proceeds with the Prayer.<\/p>\n

12:25 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 from Team 16 departs.
\n12:25 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from Team 17 appears. He greets the Bench and seeks permission to briefly present the relevant facts.
\n12:28 PM<\/strong><\/span> Although resolute and determined in his arguments, the Speaker appears slightly confused in parts.
\n12:31 PM<\/strong><\/span> He lays down the first two issues before the Bench. The Speaker does not seem to be very lucid in his arguments.<\/p>\n

12:32 PM<\/strong><\/span> One of the Judges questions him on ‘de minimus criteria’. He briefly answers her question but the Judge asks him to explain further. He tries to do so and draws the attention of the Judge towards Paragraph 7 of the Team’s moot memorial. Despite this, the judge is not satisfied with his response.
\n12:35 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Speaker proceeds with the third issue but is apparently slightly imprecise with his arguments.<\/p>\n

12:37 PM<\/strong><\/span> He is questioned by one of the Judges on ‘single economic entity’. The Speaker provides some context to the term and explains it well. He mentions the Sherman Act while also citing a number of judgements here.
\n12:39 PM<\/strong><\/span> One of the Judges poses a question to him regarding Section 3(3) of the Competition Act. The Speaker brings up certain CCI cases and provides an elaborate response.
\n12:41 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from Team 17 departs.
\n12:42 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 appears. He provides the framework of his arguments and submits the first one.
\n12:43 PM<\/span><\/strong> He is interrupted by one of the Judges and is asked to cite any statute where there is an appellate tribunal present which pertains to the principles of natural justice. The Speaker cites a case but to his disappointment, the Judge turns it down.
\n12:45 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker is cross-questioned by the Judge but fails to provide a satisfactory response here.
\n12:47 PM<\/strong><\/span> He proceeds with his further contentions while also providing some case laws.
\n12:49 PM<\/strong><\/span> One of the Judges asks him to pay heed to Section 36(1) of the Competition Act. The Judge is not pleased and asks him to clarify and to provide a source of the particular argument.
\n12:51 PM<\/strong><\/span> He is questioned by another Judge on ‘unfettered authority’. One of the Judges adds to the question. He is unable to successfully provide an answer to their questions and is asked to proceed with his arguments, given the limited time.<\/p>\n

12:56 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Court Clerk reminds Team 17 that the 30 minutes allotted to them for arguments are up.<\/p>\n

12:57 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 sums up his arguments with due permission from the Bench.
\n12:58 PM<\/strong><\/span> One of the Judges asks him to submit the Prayer.
\n12:59 PM<\/strong><\/span> Another Judge seeks clarifications from the Court Clerk with respect to rebuttals. The Court Clerk informs the Bench that the Teams have already exhausted their allotted time. The Court Clerk leaves it to the discretion of the Bench. The Judges do not wish the Teams to go for rebuttals.
\n1:00 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Preliminary round 1B concludes.<\/p>\n

Preliminary Round 2A<\/h3>\n

Court Room 1A<\/h4>\n

1:29 PM<\/strong><\/span> The first speaker of Team 01 informs that their researcher would not be able to join due to certain personal reasons
\n1:30 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judge asks the court clerk if he’d be adjudicating the same team as he did in the previous round and whether the bench would remain the same as he believes it would be unfair to the participants. However, the participant schedule remains unchanged.
\n1:32 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk welcomes the participants and briefs them on the miscellaneous guidelines.<\/p>\n

1:33 PM<\/strong><\/span> The 1st speaker from Team 17 commences his speech.
\n1:35 PM<\/strong><\/span> As the speaker goes on to present the facts of the case, he is advised by the bench to move directly to his arguments as they are already well versed with the facts of the case.<\/p>\n

1:38 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel cites and relies on various statutory provisions to substantiate his case. He effectively relates them to the case in hand.
\n1:42 PM<\/strong><\/span> When the counsel goes on to conclude his arguments, the bench points out that the counsel must make sure to ask the bench if they have any questions or queries regarding the arguments presented especially when there is ample time available for the same. The bench asks him to proceed with his arguments.<\/p>\n

1:46 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel seems a little confused by one contention put forth by the bench. He tries to hold his ground by making use of certain statutory provisions. However, the bench does not seem satisfied with his response, and he is asked to proceed with his submissions.
\n1:51 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench asks for a clarification relating to the term “control” as used by the counsel. The counsel responds that the same shall be clarified by him later in his speech.<\/p>\n

1:53 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench reminds the counsel to answer their previously raised question regarding the definition of “control”. The counsel proceeds to define it and then moves on with his submissions.<\/p>\n

1:56 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk informs that the counsel’s allotted time has elapsed. However, he still continues with his speech.
\n2:00 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 01 concludes his speech.<\/p>\n

2:00 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 02 from Team 17 commences his speech and goes on to lay down the issues which will be taken up by him.
\n2:02 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker is presented with a question by the bench. To this, he responds that the clarification asked by the bench would be taken up by him while using other provisions to substantiate his case.
\n2:05 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench points out a mistake made by the speaker during his speech in the usage of the terms “implicitly” and “explicitly”. The counsel apologises for the same.
\n2:08 PM<\/strong><\/span> The time of the speaker elapses, though he is graciously granted five more minutes by the bench to complete his submissions.<\/p>\n

2:12 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench puts forward their questions and asks for a few clarifications relating to the memorial of the counsels. The counsel is able to answer the queries raised. However, his arguments lack confidence and the bench does not seem convinced with the reasoning given.
\n2:16 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench again puts forth their question, reframing it, as they were not satisfied with the submission given by the counsel.
\n2:17 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench reminds the counsel that he is using up his rebuttal time, after which, the counsel moves on to present his prayers.
\n2:18 PM<\/strong><\/span> The first speaker from Team 01 commences his speech.
\n2:22 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel is advised by the bench to limit his speech to the relevant facts and issues of the case.<\/p>\n

2:24 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench seeks clarification on certain grounds mentioned by the counsel. The counsel provides the same and moves forward with his submissions.<\/p>\n

2:29 PM<\/strong> <\/span>After the counsel concludes his submissions, the bench seeks clarifications regarding his stance by presenting analogies. He answers it with a bit of hesitation.
\n2:31 PM<\/strong> <\/span>He is posed with another question by the bench relating to the constitutional right of legal representation. He answers it confidently with little to no difficulty. He then concludes his speech.
\n2:33 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The second speaker of Team 01 commences his speech.
\n2:34 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel is posed with a question relating to a technicality mentioned in the relevant provision used by him from the Competition Act. He goes on to answer it, however, in his first attempt, the bench does not seem satisfied with his line of reasoning. His statements seem self-contradictory. He concludes his answer and moves on with his arguments.<\/p>\n

2:40 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel goes on to cite cases to support his stance. However, the bench asks him to clarify how exactly the cases cited are relevant to the case in hand. The counsel seems taken aback and confused because of the continuous line of cross-questions.
\n2:44 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Seemingly unconvinced with the counsel’s arguments, the bench asks him to move forward with his submissions.
\n2:48 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The bench again asks for a clarification regarding the submission made by the counsel. The counsel answers it with a visible sense of doubt.<\/p>\n

2:50 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk informs the counsel that his allotted time has elapsed. However, he goes on with his speech.
\n2:53 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The series of questions continue from the side of the bench. The counsel tries his best to answer them all.
\n2:56 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The bench points out a particular discrepancy ignored by the counsel in his speech and asks him to present his prayers.
\n2:58 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The court clerk reminds everyone regarding the paucity of time and asks the counsel to conclude his speech.
\n2:58 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel puts forth his prayers.
\n2:50 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The round stands concluded.<\/p>\n

Court Room 2A<\/h4>\n

1:30 PM<\/strong><\/span> The participants have joined the virtual courtroom, and the judges are awaited.
\n1:32 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk briefs on the important rules that are to be followed.
\n1:32 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 of Team 18 greets the bench and seeks permission to proceed with her issues.<\/p>\n

1:35 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel makes her first submission without any interruptions from the honourable bench.
\n1:36 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel proceeds with the next issue stating relevant provisions of the law. She further substantiates her argument through judicial decisions.<\/p>\n

1:40<\/strong><\/span> The bench poses a factual question to the counsel which is comfortably answered by her.<\/p>\n

1:49 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench confronts the counsel with a conceptual question that is finely answered by the counsel, backing her response with case laws.
\n1:51 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench bombards the counsel with a series of questions which seems to shake off the counsel’s confidence.
\n1:53 PM<\/strong><\/span> The line of questioning does not end even after the counsel’s speaking time has elapsed.
\n1:55 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 of T18 commences her arguments.
\n1:57 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel states a few legal maxims in the field of natural justice. To further her stance, she states a case. The bench immediately interrupts and informs that the case being cited is a criminal law case. The counsel swiftly passes this hurdle by justifying why she cited a criminal law case.<\/p>\n

2:03 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench grills the counsel and the latter finds herself in an arduous position. Her initial confidence seems to have faded away due to the relentless cross-questioning.
\n2:06 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is asked to explain the terms being used by her in her replies to the bench.
\n2:08 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel proceeds to the next issue.
\n2:09 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The court clerk notifies about the counsel’s allotted time getting over.
\n2:11 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel rests her case. The bench poses her a question, and the counsel’s reply to the bench does not seem to convince them.<\/p>\n

2:14 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk constantly reminds the courtroom that the cousel’s time is up. However, the cross-questioning does not come to rest.
\n2:18 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel concludes her speech.
\n2:19 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 1 of T02 comes to the stage and states the issues that she intends to plead.
\n2:20 PM<\/span> <\/strong>The counsel continues with her first issue with no trace of panic. She cites both domestic and international landmark cases to back her claims.
\n2:23 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench questions the counsel about the relevance of a particular case cited by her. The bench appears content with the counsel’s reply.<\/p>\n

2:27 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker continues with her second issue.
\n2:29 PM<\/strong><\/span> Honourable judges seek clarification as to the difference in the meaning of the terms “illegality” and “irregularity”. The counsel answers it in respect of the case at hand.
\n2:31 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The honourable judges point out to the counsel that the case cited by her is in conflict with the contention she raises.
\n2:37 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Another line of question is posed to the counsel, to which she answers well.<\/p>\n

2:39 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 of T02 concludes her speech.
\n2:40 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 2 of T02 takes the stage and proceeds with her issues.
\n2:42 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The bench interrupts the counsel with a question, and to answer the same she refers to the key provisions of the relevant statutory enactment.
\n2:48 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel proceeds with another contention.
\n2:50 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk intimates that the counsel’s speaking time has been exhausted.<\/p>\n

2:52 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel requests for an extension of time, which is permitted by the bench.<\/p>\n

2:55 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel seeks to move to prayer after stating what she contends. On this note, she faces interrogation from the bench. The counsel finds it difficult to answer the bench’s question.
\n2:59 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The court clerk concludes round 2A of the prelims.<\/p>\n

3:00 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench allows a 10 seconds rebuttal.
\n3:01 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench warns about deducting marks if T02 replies to the rebuttal without coming up with a new point.
\n3:02 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 1 of T2 proceeds with her stance.
\n3:02 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench concludes the round while applauding the teams for their enthusiastic participation.<\/p>\n

Court Room 3A<\/h4>\n

1:33 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk introduces the rules and requests the participants to switch on their video before the commencement of the round. The honourable bench directs the commencement.
\n1:36 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from Team 19 representing the appellants proceeds with his arguments as part of his appeal. The honourable judge directs the counsel to narrate the facts of the case.
\n1:39 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel after a brief narration, proceeds to lay out his arguments and delves into the relevant issues of the case.<\/p>\n

1:42 PM<\/strong><\/span> The honourable judge directs the counsel to repeat his argument regarding a specific point. The counsel presents his justification briskly and proceeds with the second issue of the case.
\n1:44 PM<\/strong><\/span> It appears a technical issue has appeared at the end of the counsel. A slight pause occurs in the round.
\n1:46 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel rejoins and proceeds to present his issue from the beginning.<\/p>\n

1:51 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is sought clarification from the honourable judge regarding the mention of a case’s citation in the counsel’s memorandum.
\n1:54 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judge assures the visibly nervous counsel to calmly explain his point once again. An array of questions pursues regarding the same.
\n1:55 PM<\/strong><\/span> After concluding his arguments the counsel calls for the second counsel to carry forward the arguments of the appellant. The second counsel commences his arguments confidently.
\n1<\/strong>:59 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judge poses a question to the counsel regarding the justification of his statements along with relevant judicial precedents. The counsel takes a brief pause to look into the relevant citation and provides information regarding the same.
\n2:01 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judge directs the team’s researcher to point out the precedent from the memorandum while the counsel carries forward with his arguments while tackling a new array of questions from the judge.<\/p>\n

2:06 PM<\/strong><\/span> The researcher seeming to fail in providing the specific mention of the case cited by the counsel receives a subtle warning from the judge to be more aware in the near future.
\n2:10 PM<\/strong><\/span> Due to the end of the counsel’s time, he is directed to conclude his arguments swiftly. The bench denies allowing the counsel for submitting his prayer due to the paucity of time.
\n2:12 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from Team 03 representing the counsel for respondent moves towards the virtual stand and commences her arguments.
\n2:16 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judge puts forward a question regarding the relevancy of the argument to which the counsel responds confidently. The judge seeks further clarification.<\/p>\n

2:18 PM<\/strong><\/span> Fazed by the line of questioning, the counsel seems to be getting visibly nervous.
\n2:23 PM<\/strong> <\/span>After admitting to misstating her arguments the counsel prays for an apology before facing a new line of heated questions. Her response seemingly fails in satisfying the bench.<\/p>\n

2:28 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel fails in recalling a relevant fact after being questioned by the judge.<\/p>\n

2:32 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judge puts forward a simpler two-fold question after being dissatisfied by the counsel’s response who tries to explain her points with the help of case laws.
\n2:33 PM<\/strong><\/span> The second counsel takes the stand and furthers the arguments.
\n2:38 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The judge asks a few questions to seek clarification on the circumstances which prove the claims of the counsel.<\/p>\n

2:43 PM<\/strong><\/span> The nervous counsel turns silent momentarily after seeming to fail in providing a satisfactory answer to justify their accusation regarding the formation of a cartel by the appellant.
\n2:45 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel tries to present her final argument hurriedly while the Court clerk indicates the end of her speaking time.
\n2:48 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel receives a warning for exceeding her speaking time. The court clerk allows for a final minute to move forward with the rebuttals to the counsel of the appellant.
\n2:50 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel for the appellant puts forward his rebuttals directed towards the respondent but the judge objects to an error in his question. The counsel for the respondent is provided with a minute to respond to the rebuttals. Her answer is cut short by the bench since the speaking time ended.<\/p>\n

2:55 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk thanks the participants and concludes the round.<\/p>\n

Court Room 4A<\/h4>\n

1:33 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk begins by laying out the time limits and declares the round open.
\n1:34 PM<\/strong><\/span> The first speaker of Team 20 seeks permission to skip the facts and to focus solely on the issues, primarily the second and third issues. He begins with his submissions on the second issue first.
\n1:38 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judge questions the counsel to which he replies, and moves on with his submissions.<\/p>\n

1:40 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel advances further questions with regards to his submissions. The counsel provides precedent which seems to satisfy the court.
\n1:45 PM<\/strong><\/span> The honorable bench enquires the counsel on the action the panel believes the appellants should have taken, the answers don’t seem to please them. The counter questions posed to him are answered with precedent. The counsel concludes his submissions on the second issue. The paucity of time makes him move on to the third issue.<\/p>\n

1:51 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is interrupted while he is submitting his arguments, and the honourable bench questions him on statutory provisions read in the context of the proposition in the case. He answers confidently and concludes his submission. He passes the mantle to the co-counsel to argue on the first and fourth issues.
\n1:54 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 for Team 20 begins with his submissions.
\n1:57 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is posed with his first question from the honourable bench, which he answers to their satisfaction and moves on with his contentions.<\/p>\n

2:05 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel speaks concisely on the first issue without interruption so far. He submits his facts and contentions on the issues, and concludes. Thereafter, he is allowed permission by the judges to cite his prayer.
\n2:08 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 for Team 04 begins with her arguments. She appears on behalf of the respondents.
\n2:15 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel has not faced any questions so far. She seems articulate and well-versed.<\/p>\n

2:19 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel concludes her arguments on the issues, and introduces her co-counsel who begins his submissions on the other issues.
\n2:26 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Posed with no questions by the honorable bench, the counsel proceeds to speak on the second issue now.
\n2:29 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel concludes his argument, and proceeds to pray for relief before the honourable bench.<\/p>\n

2:31 PM<\/strong><\/span> The appellant side begins with their rebuttals.
\n2:33 PM<\/strong><\/span> The respondent counsels also rebut the submissions of the opposing counsels.
\n2:37 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The round is declared concluded by the court clerk.<\/p>\n

Court Room 5A<\/h4>\n

1:33 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 of Team 21 begins with her speech.
\n1:34 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judges ask the speaker to move directly to the issue without stating the facts of the case.
\n1:35 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker quotes a few sections from the Companies Act, which is shared on screen by the researcher of the appellants’ side.<\/p>\n

1:37 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel relies on case laws for substantiating her arguments. She weaves the facts of the case at hand while doing so.
\n1:38 PM<\/strong><\/span> One of the judges seeks clarification on an article mentioned by the counsel and asks her to explain its relevance in the current scenario.
\n1:39 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judge states that the counsel is not properly satisfying their burden here.<\/p>\n

1<\/strong>:40 PM<\/strong><\/span> Another panellist asks the appellants’ side to quote the articles again and elaborate on their reasoning. The speaker falters at times but is able to present her answer convincingly.
\n1:43 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench points another flaw in their proposed reasonings, which the speaker tries to engage with.
\n1:44 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker moves to the next submission but the judge interrupts to confirm whether the speaker would provide submission on a question asked previously. She says that her co-counsel will engage with the same.<\/p>\n

1:45 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel starts with the next submission. However, the bench notes an issue present in the appellants’ side’s memorial. The speaker while clarifying is met with continuous questioning from the judges.
\n1:49 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk notifies that the allotted time has elapsed, but the speaker still goes on with her last submission. The judges seem to have missed that.
\n1:50 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel gives her an additional minute to complete the submission.
\n1:51 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 runs out of her additional time and is asked to stop.
\n1:52 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 of Team 21 is invited for her speech and is requested to complete the arguments left out by the previous speaker.
\n1:54 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 begins by quickly concluding the first submission, and seeks permission to move on to the next. A panellist, however, poses two questions regarding that submission. The speaker seems like she expected that question and confidently answers.
\n1:57 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker brings up several cases and also explains the facts while putting forth the reasoning for her arguments.
\n1:57 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench directly attacks this argument made by the counsel. The speaker quotes relevant clauses of various acts to prove that the argument stands.
\n1:59 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel brings in more cross-questions at this point, questioning the whole essence of the argument.
\n2:00 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel relies on her compendium to convince the panel.
\n2:02 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker concludes all her submissions and proceeds to say the prayer. The judges tell her to skip the same.
\n2:03 PM<\/strong><\/span> One of the judges asks the counsel to state in one line what her last argument was since it did not quite satisfy the panel.
\n2:03 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker provides a summary of the concluding arguments and ends her speech.<\/p>\n

2:04 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 of Team 5 begins with her speech.
\n2:05 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel from the respondent’s side also directly dives into their submission of the issues.
\n2:06 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel provides a leakproof analysis of the first argument using a case law and also reading relevant clauses from the Acts.
\n2:07 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker picks up each factor of the contention and tries to convince the panel as to how the facts tilt in the favour of the respondents.
\n2:09 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker indulges in rebutting a contention given by the appellants’ side. She reads out the clause that the appellant counsel relied on and explains to the panel that this argument does not stand.
\n2:11 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The judges present another question and engage in more cross-questioning after listening to the speaker’s elaboration.
\n2:14 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker faces some rigorous questioning from the panel; she appears unphased by the same.
\n2:15 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker has proper arguments up her sleeve for every question that the judge poses.
\n2:16 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel finally gets to proceed to the next submission.
\n2:18 PM<\/strong> <\/span>An extensive amount of clauses are quoted by the speaker while presenting.
\n2:18 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The court clerk notifies that the speaker’s allotted time has elapsed.<\/p>\n

2:19 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel interrupts the speaker mid-sentence to seek clarification on her arguments.
\n2:20 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The court clerk continues to point out the elapsed time.
\n2:20 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker ends her speech.
\n2:20 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 2 of Team 5 starts with her submission.
\n2:22 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The judge presents a question related to the reasoning used and its applicability in the case at hand. The judge demands further elaboration from the speaker. The panel and the speaker engage in a lot of back and forth on this subject
\n2:25 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker seems confused by the continuous questions posed by the bench.
\n2:27 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel proceeds with the next argument after a brief cross-examination.<\/p>\n

2:28 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker finds herself with more cross questioning in her way.
\n2:30 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel moves to the next submission.
\n2:32 PM<\/strong> <\/span>This speaker, like the previous one, resorts extensively to case laws in order to substantiate her arguments.
\n2:34 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel seeks permission to move to prayer and the panel asks her to skip the same.
\n2:34 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 1 of Team 21 presents the rebuttals. Her alloted time is 2 minutes. She tries to point quite a lot of flaws in opposition’s argument.
\n2:36 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The time for rebuttals has elapsed. The panel persists, and asks for clarification relating to one of the speaker’s statements.
\n2:37 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 1 from the respondent’s side gives the surrebuttals, alloted time being 2 minutes.
\n2:39 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker concludes her speech here and thanks the panel.
\n2:39 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk expresses his gratitude to the bench and the participants. The participants leave the meeting and hereby, the 2A round of prelims ends.<\/p>\n

Court Room 6A<\/h4>\n

1:25 PM<\/strong><\/span> The 3rd round of preliminaries are about to begin as the teams have entered the meeting room and the court clerk asks everyone to turn on their cameras.
\n1:33 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk ceremoniously explains the rules and instructions before the round begins.<\/p>\n

1:35 PM<\/strong><\/span> The proceedings begin as speaker 1 from team 23 greets the hon’ble bench and explains the structure of his speech.
\n1:37 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker calmly discusses relevant case laws, notifications, and provisions from the Competition Act, 2002 to strengthen his case and reasoning.<\/p>\n

1:40 PM<\/strong><\/span> Upon being asked whether the appellants have any authority in the case, the counsel responds by citing the relevant case law. The panel further questions the role and powers of the commissioner, to which the speaker says that it would be taken up by his co-counsel.
\n1:43 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker explains the concept of a single economic entity according to the Competition Commission of India to solidify his stance.
\n1:45 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel interrupts and asks about certain aspects of the provisions that were talked about earlier by the speaker, he answers the same using a case law.
\n1:47 PM<\/strong><\/span> With that, speaker 1 wraps up his speech.
\n1:48 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 of team 23, from the appellants’ side, begins his speech by stating the first issue. He further goes on to list his submissions regarding the same.
\n1:52 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The panel asks whether a lawyer can be assigned as a receiver of the party by the CCI as per CPC or CrPC. The Speaker answers in a negative.<\/p>\n

1:55 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Speaker starts presenting the third issue. The hon’ble panel again interrupts here to ask where is it written that DG has the power to preside over a civil court. Since it is neither mentioned in the speaker’s speech, nor has he provided a satisfactory answer, the panel is left unimpressed.
\n1:57 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel questions about the act that gives the power of investigation to the DG, and the speaker answers by mentioning the relevant provisions.
\n1:59 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel reminds the speaker about the time limitation. The speaker takes note and proceeds ahead with his arguments.
\n2:02 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel seeks clarification regarding circumstantial evidence and communication, which the speaker answers comfortably citing a case law.<\/p>\n

2:06 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel asks several questions regarding anti-competitiveness which the speaker addresses with ease.
\n2:07 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker concludes confidently.
\n2:08 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from team 07 as the respondent’s side begins his speech by stating that he will address the first two issues and his co-counsel will take up the remaining two issues.
\n2:10 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker discusses the issue of jurisdiction. He is then asked about the principle of natural justice by the panel which he answers unfailingly.
\n2:11 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker uses the Thomas Cook case and 27th clarification notification issued by the CCI to solidify the respondents’ stance.
\n2:13 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker states the US guidelines of which the panel seek clarification regarding the jurisdiction. The speaker uses the facts to clarify his stance. The panel seems unimpressed. To this, the speaker goes on to explain an Indian case law to support his argument.<\/p>\n

2:18 PM<\/strong><\/span> Citing an example of CCI vs Steel India Ltd., the speaker states that the principle of natural justice does not apply to the current scenario. He further states some more provisions to support his reasoning.
\n2:22 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The panel asks the speaker to define the process of search and seizure in criminal law and under whose jurisdiction it falls. The speaker falters while answering the first question, but answers the second question confidently, stating that the matter can be taken up by any first-class magistrate.
\n2:24 PM<\/strong><\/span> Upon being asked by the panel regarding the availability of lawyers, the speaker clarifies his stance and wraps up his speech as he is reminded of the same by the court clerk.
\n2:26 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 2 begins with his speech, prefacing that he would discuss issues 3 and 4.<\/p>\n

2:29 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel asks about the hub-and-spoke theory since it was not mentioned in the written submissions. The speaker answers by stating that it is a method of indirect price determination where a few entities regulate the whole market through their actions. He further uses some case laws to cement their stance.
\n2:34 PM<\/strong><\/span> Once again, while speaker 2 cites the example of the beer-cartel case to support his argument, he is reminded of time constraints.<\/p>\n

2:37 PM<\/strong><\/span> While speaker 2 is rebutting some of the contentions made by the appellants using written submissions, the panellists ask him for clarity regarding pricing information. He succinctly answers the query.
\n2:39 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk notifies that two minutes are remaining before the end of the allotted time for speaker 2.
\n2:41 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Time is up for speaker 2 but he continues with his submissions.
\n2:44 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker asks permission to proceed with his prayer. He is permitted and wraps up his speech with the same.
\n2:45 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from the appellants’ side, with permission, begins his rebuttals on a few contentions made by the side respondents.
\n2:46 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 concludes his speech.
\n2:47 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 1 from the respondent side begins his surrebuttals and tries to point out flaws in the opposition’s arguments.
\n2:48 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 1 concludes his surrebuttals.
\n2:49 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The court clerk concludes this round with a vote of thanks. With this, round 2A of the prelims comes to an end.<\/p>\n

Court Room 7A<\/h4>\n

1:31 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Court Clerk introduces herself and welcomes the participants. She explains some basic rules.
\n1:32 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 of Team 24 appears. However, she is not properly audible.<\/p>\n

1:34 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Counsel introduces herself and greets the Bench. She presents her first argument, linking it to the Competition Act, 2002. She submits that the acquisition does not fall under the threshold and goes on to lay the foundation of her arguments.
\n1:36 PM<\/strong><\/span> She seems to be quite eloquent in her submissions.<\/p>\n

1:37 PM<\/strong><\/span> One of the Judges poses a question to her. However, the Judge is not properly audible. The Judge mentions in the chatbox that he will be asking the question at some later point in time after which the speaker proceeds with her submission.<\/p>\n

1:39 PM<\/strong><\/span> One of the Judges questions her on ‘jurisdictional threshold’, ‘assets’, and ‘turnover’. She answers all these questions confidently and swiftly.
\n1:40 PM<\/strong><\/span> Another Judge poses a related question to her. Despite getting stuck at points, she is able to assert her response.<\/p>\n

1:42 PM<\/strong><\/span> She moves on with her next contention pertaining to the CCR and its being wrong in its stance. She mentions ‘reasonable restrictions’ and explains a test to determine whether the conduct of a firm is anti-competitive or not.
\n1:45 PM<\/strong><\/span> She is questioned by one of the Judges with respect to the increase in prices. The Judge asserts that the same is unfair and is hampering the competition. To answer this question, she cites a particular case. However, she ends up mixing up a few words.
\n1:48 PM<\/strong><\/span> She goes on to elaborate on ‘refusal to deal’ to substantiate her case and mentions a number of reasons pertaining to it.
\n1:50 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 winds up her arguments and departs.
\n1:51 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 2 from Team 24 appears.<\/p>\n

1:52 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 presents her first argument. She cites a relevant case law and mentions ‘right to be represented’.
\n1:54 PM<\/strong> <\/span>One of the Judges interrupts her. He asks her to explain ‘right to be represented’ and at what stage it starts. He also adds to this question and questions her on the process of investigation.<\/p>\n

1:56 PM<\/strong><\/span> She tries to answer the question but the Judge is not pleased. He cross-questions her and luckily she comes up with an answer.
\n1:57 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Judge asks her to distinguish ‘right to be represented’ and ‘right to be heard’. She makes an attempt at answering but is then asked to proceed.<\/p>\n

1:59 PM<\/strong><\/span> She provides a set of arguments on ‘cartelisation’. The Speaker appears confident overall.
\n2:02 PM<\/strong> <\/span>A Judge questions her on ‘collusion’. To answer the question, she explains a particular case. However, the Judge mentions that the judgement of the case goes against her point.
\n2:04 PM<\/strong> <\/span>One of the Judges asks her to explain the ‘sharing of prices’ strategy and if it should be allowed in the future. She pleads ignorance.
\n2:06 PM<\/strong> <\/span>She explains AAEC, but is reminded of the paucity of time after which she seeks an extension of 30 seconds to present the Prayer.<\/p>\n

2:08 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The Speaker thereafter concludes her speech and departs.
\n2:09 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 1 from Team 8 appears. She briefly explains the Speakers’ roles and presents her first argument relating to ‘enterprise’.
\n2:10 PM<\/strong> <\/span>She draws the attention of the Bench towards paragraph 4 of the moot memorial of Team 8 and cites some case laws.
\n2:11 PM<\/strong> <\/span>One of the Judges seeks clarification from her on penal provisions. She answers the question confidently but gets cross-questioned. She provides an answer to that question, too, and the Judge finally looks satisfied.
\n2:12 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Another Judge asks her the facts of a particular case that has been mentioned in paragraph 4 of the moot memorial of Team 8. She tries to answer the question but could not achieve the satisfaction of the Judge.<\/p>\n

2:14 PM<\/strong><\/span> She proceeds with the second contention on behalf of the Team. She mentions a number of cases here.
\n2:16 PM<\/strong> <\/span>One of the Judges draws her attention to one of the paragraphs from the Team’s memo dealing with the ‘provision of providing a statutory notice’ and poses a question to her. She answers the question confidently.
\n2:18 PM<\/strong> <\/span>She is questioned on one of the paragraphs of the fact sheet. To answer the question, she cites some cases but fails to provide a strong argument in this regard.
\n2:20 PM<\/strong> <\/span>She ends her submissions and departs.
\n2:21 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 2 from Team 8 appears. She proceeds with her first argument. She cites a number of paragraphs from the moot proposition, the Team’s moot memorial and certain case laws that are relevant in this regard.
\n2:25 PM<\/strong> <\/span>One of the Judges asks her to distinguish between ‘public information’ and ‘private information’ in this regard. She attempts to confidently answer the question but her confidence seems to be drooping as newer questions get posed.
\n2:28 PM<\/span><\/strong> She proceeds with her next argument when one of the Judges asks her to explain the conditions for AAEC.
\n2:31 PM<\/strong> <\/span>She provides a satisfactory answer to this question and proceeds with the next argument.
\n2:32 PM<\/strong> <\/span>She draws the attention of the Judges towards paragraph 45 of the Team’s moot memorial. The Speaker humbly submits the judgements of the SCOTUS on a certain case.
\n2:35 PM<\/strong> <\/span>One of the Judges intervenes and mentions that ‘refusal’ needs to be distinguished from ‘re-negotiation’. The Speaker refers to Section 3(3) of the Competition Act to answer this. She gets cross-questioned here but is unable to provide an answer to the question.
\n2:38 PM<\/strong> <\/span>She concludes her arguments and seeks permission to present the Prayer. She proceeds with the same.
\n2:40 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The Court Clerk asks if there are any rebuttals. Speaker 2 from Team 8 proceeds with the rebuttals.
\n2:42 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The Round stands concluded.<\/p>\n

Court Room 8A<\/h4>\n

1:31 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk greets the room and briefs everyone regarding the important guidelines.
\n1:32 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 1 of Team 25 takes up the stage but her voice is getting distorted.<\/p>\n

1:37 PM<\/strong> <\/span>After a few minutes of technical hindrance the speaker finally starts with her argument.
\n1:40 PM<\/strong> <\/span>One of the judges asks the speaker to mention the facts of the case which she cited but the speaker is ambiguous in her response and cannot answer the question.
\n1:43 PM<\/strong> <\/span>She is further asked by the panel to deliberate upon Section 27 of the Competition Act.
\n1:46 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The panel asks the speaker to have more clarity in her statements as the panel is finding it difficult to understand her context.
\n1:49 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The panel asks the speaker to highlight her argument in the memorial that she has submitted and she complies with the same.
\n1:51 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The section highlighted by the speaker in her memorial does not satisfy the panel as a result of which, she apologizes.<\/p>\n

1:54 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel is questioning the speaker back and forth in response to which, she is trying really hard to give satisfactory answers but is unable to do so.
\n2:00 PM<\/strong><\/span> The series of fierce questioning continues and the panel seems unconvinced by her arguments.
\n2:01 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk interrupts and asks her to conclude as her time limit is already exhausted.
\n2:02 PM<\/strong><\/span> She pleads the panel to grant her an additional 20 seconds to conclude and is given the same but is interrupted in between by the Honourable Judge and is asked to let her co-counsel take up the case from here.
\n2:04 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 of Team 25 takes up the dais and furthers the previous argument which could not be concluded because of the panel’s questions.
\n2:07 PM<\/strong><\/span> She asks permission to continue with her argument and the panel grants her a minute to continue with her submissions<\/p>\n

2:09 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 has exhausted her allocated time but is granted 30 additional seconds to conclude and even during that time, she is getting questioned by the panel.
\n2:11 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk again reminds her of the exceeded time and asks her to conclude but the series of questioning seems to be unstoppable.
\n2:12 PM<\/strong><\/span> She asks permission from the dais to proceed with her prayer and is granted the same.
\n2:13 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 1 of Team 10 takes up the stage but is not audible. Thankfully, the issue gets resolved within a few seconds preventing any major inconvenience.
\n2:15 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker asks permission to proceed with his submissions provided that the panel is well-informed of all the relevant facts, to which the panel answered positively.
\n2:16 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The panel asks the speaker to read Section 2(y) of the Act.<\/p>\n

2:18 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker is facing difficulties in answering the questions of the panel.
\n2:21 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Out of dissatisfaction the panel keeps questioning the speaker constantly and highlighting the loopholes in his arguments.
\n2:24 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The panel explicitly mentions its dissatisfaction with the arguments advanced by the speaker to which the speaker pleads ignorance.
\n2:27 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The panel asks the speaker to move to his next submission as the bench does not approve of his present argument.
\n2:29 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 1 of Team10 seems nervous and unclear in his argument and the series of added questioning does not seem to lessen his nervousness in any manner.
\n2:33 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The panel asks him to proceed towards a conclusion as the speaker seems fazed but the series of fierce questioning again bombards him.
\n2:37 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The panel asks the speaker to conclude as he has already exceeded the allotted time to which he complies.
\n2:37 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 of Team 10 takes up the stage and informs the judges that she would like to address any preliminary query they might have to which the panel replies in affirmative and puts forth its questions.
\n2:39 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The panel asks the speaker whether she agrees with her co-counsel’s arguments to which she replies in affirmative and the questioning furthers.
\n2:41 PM<\/strong><\/span> She pleads ignorance on not being able to answer one of the panel’s questions satisfactorily.
\n2:41 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The panel asks her to move forward with her next contention.
\n2:45 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The panel asks her to read para 10 of the moot problem and questions her regarding the same.
\n2:47 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The court clerk asks the speaker to conclude her argument as the time limit is exhausted to which she complies.
\n2:48 PM<\/strong><\/span> speaker 1 of T25 asks permission for rebuttal and is granted the same.
\n2:50 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The court clerk reminds the speaker to conclude as her allocated time is exhausted, she tries to continue but the court clerk reiterates the time limit and asks her to end the argument.
\n2:52 PM<\/strong> <\/span>All the members greet each other and the court clerk announces the end of the preliminary round 2A.<\/p>\n

Preliminary Round 2B<\/h3>\n

Court Room 1B<\/h4>\n

3:14 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk clarifies to one of the judges that they joined the wrong courtroom.
\n3:16 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The confusion regarding the allotment of the courtrooms continues and the court clerk asks another one of the judges to join their allotted courtroom.
\n3:18 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judges are awaited.<\/p>\n

3:19 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk asks for one of the judges to speak but he had already left the meeting.<\/p>\n

3:19 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk asks for one of the judges to speak but he had already left the meeting.
\n3:22 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The judges join the meet.
\n3:22 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The court clerk welcomes the participants and the judges and provides a brief regarding the rules of the round.
\n3:24 PM<\/strong><\/span> As speaker 01 of Team 26 proceeds with her speech, she faces connectivity issues. She is advised to join with another device by the bench.<\/p>\n

3:26 PM<\/strong><\/span> The co-counsel takes over at this point and commences her speech. The bench asks her to only skim through the facts of the case as they are already well-versed with them.<\/p>\n

3:29 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The co-counsel is asked to read out the section which she referred to. She misunderstands the questions and the bench does not seem satisfied with her response.
\n3:31 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The co-counsel faces audio issues but they get resolved soon after.
\n3:32 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker goes on to cite various case laws which she claims substantiate her stance. However, she is stopped mid-speech to elaborate as to how a case law she cited is relevant to the case at hand. She answers the same but the bench does not seem content with her response.
\n3:35<\/strong> PM<\/strong> <\/span>The series of cross-questions does not cease and the tension in the room increases due to frequent connectivity and audio issues from the co-counsel’s end.<\/p>\n

3:37 PM<\/strong><\/span> After she has dealt with her 1st argument, the bench again asks her for clarification on a question earlier asked by them. She seems fazed and confused. The issue of audio from her side still persists.
\n3:41 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The co-counsel tries her best to tackle the question posed by the bench. However, the bench does not seem convinced. She is asked to move forward with her arguments.
\n3:44 PM<\/strong> <\/span>She moves on with her further submissions. However, she is faced with another series of strenuous cross-questions by the bench.
\n3:49 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The court clerk informs the speaker that her time has elapsed. However, the bench graciously grants her 30 extra seconds to finish her submissions.
\n3:50 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 02 from Team 26 takes the stage. However, there is some confusion as to how much time is left for her to speak. The court clerk later clarifies that she has 8 minutes left of her allotted time.
\n3:52 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 02 commences her speech. She sounds confident in her assertions.<\/p>\n

3:54 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker is asked by the bench to go slow in her speech. She initially listens but picks up her pace again.
\n3:55 PM<\/strong> <\/span>She is interrupted by the bench for seeking clarity regarding a fact mentioned by her. She answers the same efficiently.
\n3:56 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker is yet again asked by the bench to slow down the pace of her speech.
\n3:58 PM<\/strong> <\/span>With two minutes left of the time allotted to her, she moves on to the last issue.
\n3:58<\/strong> <\/span>PM She is faced with another series of questions by the panel. However, with the use of miscellaneous statutes, and precedents, she is able to engage satisfactorily with them.
\n4:01 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Due to the paucity of time, the speaker is not able to present her prayers and is asked to conclude her speech.
\n4:02 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 01 from Team 09 commences his speech and states that he would deal with the second and the fourth issues.<\/p>\n

4:06 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel seems confused after the bench seeks clarification as to the relationship between natural justice and the right to legal representation. He requests to respond to the same later in his speech. However, the bench denies this and asks the counsel to address their query first. The cousel complies with it and uses a case law to substantiate his reasoning.
\n4:08 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel then moves on with his arguments.<\/p>\n

4:10 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is yet again faced with another line of questions by the bench. He tries his best to effectively answer them.
\n4:12 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel then moves forward with the other issues and sub-issues he intends on dealing with.
\n4:15 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The series of cross-questions continues from the side of the bench. The counsel tries his best to answer them all.
\n4:19 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel is asked to move forward with his submissions due to the paucity of time.
\n4:20 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel concludes his speech and invites his co-counsel to take over.
\n4:20 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 02 from Team 09 commences her speech. She sounds concise in her speech.<\/p>\n

4:21 PM<\/strong><\/span> She is asked by the bench to state section 19(3) of the Competition Act as she mentioned the same in her speech. She complies with the same and goes on to explain how the current case goes against this provision.
\n4:25 PM<\/strong> <\/span>As she goes on with her explanations to the bench’s questions, she faces certain audio issues. These soon get resolved.
\n4:26 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The bench again expresses their disappointment in the reasoning provided by the counsel on the issue of violation of Section 19(3). She tries to provide a rationale behind the same but she does this without much success.
\n4:28 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker is asked by the bench to define the term “agreement”. She requests to answer it later in her speech since she has one entire issue left to be dealt with in her speech. However, the bench asks her to answer their question first.
\n4:32 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The series of cross-questions continues from the side of the bench. The bench does not seem satisfied with her responses.
\n4:33 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The court clerk informs that the speaker’s time has elapsed. The bench graciously grants her 3 extra minutes to conclude her case. Even during this time, she is confronted with clarifications by the bench.
\n4:37 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Due to time constraints, the counsel is asked to conclude her arguments.
\n4:38 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The round stands concluded.<\/p>\n

Court Room 2B<\/h4>\n

3:11 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The court clerk requests all the participants to join the meeting as the session starts at 3:15 PM. The judges are awaited.
\n3:18 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk directs everyone to stay logged in and informs that the session will start in another 5-10 minutes.<\/p>\n

3:24 PM<\/strong><\/span> All the judges have graced the courtroom with their presence and the session is about to begin.
\n3:25 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The court clerk briefs everyone with the rules which are to be followed.<\/p>\n

3:26 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 of T27 seeks the bench’s permission to proceed with her arguments.
\n3:28 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel eloquently tables her first issue.
\n3:30 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel swiftly answers the question which is posed to her by the bench.
\n3:32 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The bench asks the counsel why she has approached the particular tribunal to contend her case. The counsel comfortably answers the question.
\n3:34 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel is posed with the next question of the bench which focuses on the interpretation of the term “turnover”. The counsel answers the same in a two-fold explanation.<\/p>\n

3:37 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel continues with the issue next in line.
\n3:38 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The bench intervenes with a question on the subject of investigation. The initial answer by the counsel did not satisfy the bench. The panel asks the counsel to reconsider her answer, to which she states a plethora of laws to support her reply.
\n3:42 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The honourable judges remind the counsel of the time constraints.
\n3:43 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel concludes her arguments.
\n3:44 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The co-counsel takes the stage and directs the bench’s attention to relevant provisions of the statute.
\n3:45 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The bench halts the co-counsel with a question, the latter answers the question to the best of his capabilities.<\/p>\n

3:50 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel could not move forward as he is asked a series of questions by the judges. The judge is seeking clarification regarding the “matrix of facts”. The counsel continues to answer, however, the bench is not pleased by the explanation.
\n3:56 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The bench reminds the counsel that he is running out of time.
\n3:59 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The bench allows extended time to the counsel.
\n4:00 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel pleads his prayer to the bench.
\n4:01 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 1 from T11 seeks permission, to begin with the arguments.<\/p>\n

4:05 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel cites judgements to advance her answer to the questions of the bench.
\n4:07 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench asks the counsel to move on to the next contention. Speaker 2 of T11 continues with the same.
\n4:08 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench seeks clarification regarding the legality of deposition that was carried out by the counsel in the case. To answer the question, the counsel refers to a case decided by the apex court of the respective jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

4:11 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel moves forward with his next argument and begins his submissions.
\n4:15 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel faces a line of questions from the moot proposition itself. The judges are not satisfied with the counsel’s reply.
\n4:18 PM<\/strong> <\/span>After answering the questions put forth by the bench, the speaker continues with his contention.<\/p>\n

4:19 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is halted mid-speech by the panel to question her regarding the ‘communication’ in the present case. After the counsel answers, the bench asks the co-counsel to continue with the next issue.
\n4:24 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The co-counsel advances the issue, and she continues her argument without any interruptions by the panel.
\n4:27 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The court clerk notifies that the counsel is exceeding her allotted time.
\n4:28 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The bench asks the counsel to wrap up her arguments due to the paucity of time.
\n4:30 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel puts forth her prayer to the bench.
\n4:31 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The panel allows T27 one minute for rebuttal and appreciates T11 for effectively managing their time.
\n4:32 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The second speaker of T27 represents his rebuttal. The bench poses numerous questions to the counsel’s rebuttal. The latter, by citing case laws, tries to answer them.
\n4:36 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 1 of T11 proceeds to answer the rebuttals of T27. The bench seeks clarification regarding the case laws referred by the counsel, and is answered by the latter.
\n4:38 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The court clerk concludes the round.<\/p>\n

Court Room 3B<\/h4>\n

3:14 PM<\/strong><\/span> The fourth round of the preliminaries are about to begin as everyone has joined the virtual courtroom.
\n3:20 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The court clerk specifies that the proceedings would commence in ten minutes as we await the arrival of the final judge.<\/p>\n

3:28 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk ceremoniously explains the rules and instructions before the round begins.
\n3:28 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The first speaker from the appellant side begins with her submissions.
\n3:31 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel asks the definition of “turnover” which the counsel fails to address properly. She moves on with her submissions.<\/p>\n

3:36 PM<\/strong> The counsel addresses the first issue while mentioning that the second and third issues will be dealt with by her co-counsel. She is asked the concept of vertical and horizontal agreements by the panel. She seems to be taken aback by the question and asks for a minute to come up with an answer. She is further asked about which type of agreement does the present case come under, to which she responds by stating that they believe it does not come under any.
\n3:39 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel again asks about the concept of relevant upstream market, the answer to which is not provided by the speaker. She concludes her case and invites her fellow speaker.
\n3:41 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 2 begins with her submissions.
\n3:42 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel is asked several questions based on her arguments by the honourable bench which she fails to adequately address.
\n3:44 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The honourable bench substantiate their thoughts by stating various case laws and thus, ask the speaker to clarify the issue again.<\/p>\n

3:46 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judge asks the counsel to read out Article 20(3) and to state whether it will apply to the current case. After realising that the speaker is unsure, the honourable judge himself answers the same by stating that it would not.
\n3:50 PM<\/strong> <\/span>After invalidating the second issue, the panel asks the counsel to proceed with her final issue.
\n3:52 PM<\/strong> <\/span>She is again asked by the panel about the types of agreement. She answers confidently.<\/p>\n

3:54 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker is asked the difference between agreement and information and the relevance of the same in the present case. She answers the question without any apparent difficulty.
\n3:58 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The panel is seemingly unimpressed by the entire argument and thus asks the speaker to proceed ahead with her prayer. The honourable judge asks her to not read out the prayer from her screen. He also finds a fault in the prayer submitted by the speaker.
\n4:00 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker from the respondant side starts presenting his arguments. He seeks permission to briefly state some facts. The honourable bench ask him to directly discuss the issues. The speaker obliges by stating that he is referring to the first and fourth issues.
\n4:03 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel is asked several questions by the honourable bench which he answers unfazedly.
\n4:05 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker is asked about the issues, facts involved, and judgement involved in two cases stated by him. After a brief pause, he responds to both the queries.
\n4:07 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The honourable bench again asks the difference between the two types of agreements which the speaker answers rather comfortably.<\/p>\n

4:10 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker is asked the relevance of the principle of natural justice by the panel. The speaker answers the question using a case law.
\n4:12 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The panel further asks the speaker about the powers of the DG and its relevance to the current case. After answering the query, the speaker moves on to discuss the next submission.
\n4:15 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker is granted permission to summarize his submissions.
\n4:16 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker ends his speech abruptly since he has exceeded his time and is reminded of the same by the panel.
\n4:17 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 2 is invited by the panel to begin with his submissions. He obliges.<\/p>\n

4:20 PM<\/strong><\/span> After invalidating the second issue, the panel asks the counsel to proceed with his final issue
\n4:24 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The issue that whether the lawyer can be present at the site of occurance again comes to the surface, and the panel and the speaker have a detailed exchange regarding the same based on relevant case laws. The speaker beats around the bush which the panel figures out and thus, answers the question itself. Further, they ask the speaker to proceed with his submissions.
\n4:28 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The honourable bench enlightens the court with relevant case laws, issues that can be entertained, and the provisions that need to be looked at while going through the present case.
\n4:33 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker is reminded by the court clerk that only two minutes were left. He takes note of the same and begins with his third issue.<\/p>\n

4:38 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk reminds that the speech time is up and thus the panel asks the speaker to wrap up his speech citing his prayer.
\n4:40 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker puts forth his prayer before the honourable bench.
\n4:40 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The court clerk concludes this round with a vote of thanks.<\/p>\n

Court Room 4B<\/h4>\n

3:25 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The court clerk briefs the room regarding the structure of time. She declares the rounds open.
\n3:26 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 of Team 29 begins with his submissions. He is allowed to skip the facts. He argues on behalf of the appellants.<\/p>\n

3:32 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel faces his first question from the Panel. He cites precedent to answer the question. The judge poses a counter-question, which seems to have flustered the speaker a little, but he holds his ground. The consequent counter questions are rapid, but the counsel is resilient. The judges keep grilling.
\n3:39 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is faced with another question from the panel before he is allowed to move on to his next submissions. These include questions on the facts of the current case. The judges allow him an extension of one minute to summarise and conclude his arguments.
\n3:44 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The second speaker from Team 29 begins with his submissions on two issues. He is faced with a question as soon as he begins.<\/p>\n

3:46 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Counsel stumbles here and there and is counter questioned by the bench. The barrage of questions and the exchange continues.
\n3:50 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel is allowed to proceed further with his arguments as the grilling seems to come to an end. The counsel is then questioned on a particular fact of a case he cited, which when the bench requests him to reconsider, he reluctantly insists.<\/p>\n

3:53 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel had fallen silent after a question was posed to him as he started looking at the moot memo. He seems to be picking himself up after the panel clearly asks what they would like to know. Counter questions follow his answer. He fumbles here and there but tries his best to deliver a satisfactory answer. The panel says that the Counsel has failed to establish a nexus they had insisted on in the submissions.
\n3:56 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel is allowed to cite his prayers as his time is over.
\n3:57 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 1 of Team 13 begins his submissions. He will appear on behalf of the respondents. He is asked a question by the Panel.<\/p>\n

3:59 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is repeatedly posed with questions over the facts of the current case.
\n4:02 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The panel asks him another question, which he answers with confidence citing precedent. The counter-question too is dealt with by him without hassle.
\n4:05 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is interrupted as he concludes his submissions on the first issue. The panel keeps grilling him. The counsel answers to the satisfaction of the panel and is allowed to submit his arguments on the second issue.<\/p>\n

4:11 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench starts to question yet again, but the speaker cites precedent. The counsel seems to not be aware of a regulation that the panel believes had overriding effects on the precedent. The counsel is allowed to call on the co-counsel to submit arguments on the other issues.
\n4:15 PM<\/strong><\/span> The second speaker from Team 13 is also posed with questions. Counter questions follow. He seems to answer them with confidence. A particular question posed to the speaker compels him to apologise and withdraw a previous statement.
\n4:20 PM<\/strong><\/span> The exchange continues between the counsel and the panel. The panel picks apart the inconsistencies in the counsel’s submissions who tries to defend his position but the judges appear relentless.<\/p>\n

4:23 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel fails to convince the panel of his position. He is allowed to move on to other contentions.
\n4:25 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The Counsel is allowed an extension of one minute which he exhausts, and then moves on to cite his prayers.<\/p>\n

4:28 PM<\/strong><\/span> The appellant side is allowed a minute’s time to rebut the position of the respondents.
\n4:30 PM<\/strong><\/span> The round is declared concluded by the court clerk.<\/p>\n

Court Room 5B<\/h4>\n

3:21 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk informs that the round is delayed since they are waiting for the second judge to join.<\/p>\n

3:33 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court master starts by briefing the participants and judges with the rules and instructions<\/p>\n

3:34 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 of Team 30 begins his speech from the appellants’ side.
\n3:35 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker skips the facts of the case and targets the first issue directly.
\n3:37 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel makes his submission on issue 1 and seeks permission to move to issue 4. However, one of the judges presents him with a question.
\n3:39 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel receives more questions from another panellist. He asks the panellist to repeat their question but appears to have convinced the judge with his answer.
\n3:40 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The panel then asks the counsel to state any case law with relevance to the argument given.
\n3:41 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel answers and proceeds with issue 4 in a very structured manner.<\/p>\n

3:44 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker is interrupted here and is asked to elaborate on the reasoning presented by him.
\n3:45 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker tries to defend that by pointing to the facts of the case. The panellists disagree. Another judge points out the paragraph from the moot proposition that goes contradictory to the answer presented by the counsel.
\n3:47 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench now asks the speaker to provide the panel with the definition of agreement.<\/p>\n

3:47 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk intimates that the allotted time has ended.
\n3:48 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker indulges in answering the questions that all the three judges have collectively posed.
\n3:49 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker moves to his second submission. The judges seem to have missed the warning given by the court clerk.
\n3:50 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The court clerk makes side appellant aware that the additional time taken by Speaker 1 will be deducted from that of Speaker 2.
\n3:52 PM<\/strong> <\/span>One of the judges puts forth a question attacking the argument presented in this submission.
\n3:53 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The third judge asks for a case law in relation to this argument. The speaker fails to recall the name of the case.
\n3:54 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judges continuously engage the speaker with cross-questioning.
\n3:55 PM<\/strong> <\/span>One of the judges notes the elapsed time and asks the speaker to conclude within a minute.
\n3:55 PM<\/strong> <\/span>This speaker as of now has taken 20 minutes.
\n3:56 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The additional time has finished, the speaker tries to continue, but is stopped by the panel.
\n3:57 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 2 of Team 30 now starts with her submission. The allotted time remaining is 10 minutes, excluding time for rebuttals.
\n3:59 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel plans to summarise the arguments laid by her co-counsel due to the paucity of time.
\n3:59 PM<\/strong> <\/span>A panellist asks the speaker to provide a case law to substantiate on an assertion made by her.
\n4:00 PM<\/span> <\/strong>The speaker fails to name a case law, but elaborates on her arguments.<\/p>\n

4:01 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judge interrupts again to seek clarification on the foundational argument laid by the appellant’s side. The judge does not seem to consider this argument. The speaker is asked whether she is aware of the procedure of the action of concern.
\n4:03 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker somehow manages to push through the questioning and moves on to the next submission.
\n4:04 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench points out that it is Section 30 of the Advocates Act, not “Article” as the counsel mistakenly refers. She apologizes and proceeds with further submissions.
\n4:06 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel relies on case laws to solidify her arguments.
\n4:07 PM<\/span> <\/strong>One of the judges interrupts to ask the page no. of the moot proposition where these contentions are present.
\n4:07 PM<\/strong><\/span> The 30 minutes reserved for the appellants’ side has elapsed.
\n4:09 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel thanks the panel and concludes her speech. A judge, however, puts forth two questions before she is let go.
\n4:10 PM<\/strong><\/span> Here, the appellant side rests their case.<\/p>\n

4:11 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 1 of Team 14 now begins his speech. He states that issues 1 and 2 will be dealt with by him and the remaining by his co-counsel, and that each speaker plans to conclude within 14 minutes.
\n4:12 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel stutters at times, but is able to present his contentions well.
\n4:13 PM<\/strong> <\/span>One of the judges asks the counsel a basic question as to the nature of the arrangement in the case at hand.
\n4:14 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker tries to answer by laying down existing facts, and proceeds to the next submission.
\n4:16 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The panel intervenes to understand the reasoning behind mentioning the case laws presented.
\n4:19 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker takes up issue 2 here.<\/p>\n

4:20 PM<\/strong><\/span> The presentation begins by rebutting an argument of the appellant. The judge says that he “artistically” pointed out the flaw, but at the same time he is aware of the history of the clause in contention. He asks whether the speaker has an actual argument that trumps that of the appellant.
\n4:22 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judge comments “brilliant” on the next answer given by the speaker, whether it was sarcastic, remains unknown.<\/p>\n

4:24 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel wraps up his presentation and is asked a question by another panellist.
\n4:25 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker is asked to write the relevant case law in the chatbox for the convenience of the tribunal.
\n4:26 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 2 of Team 14 starts her speech with 14 and a half minutes remaining.
\n4:27 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker resorts to citing a plethora of sections and clauses to provide reasoning for the arguments laid.
\n4:28 PM<\/strong><\/span> A judge interrupts the speaker that poses two questions to her. One of them asking for the difference in procedure in India, US and EU.
\n4:29 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker tries to answer but is interrupted by the judge repeatedly since she fails to understand what the judge actually expects. The judge asks her to point out the paragraph in the moot proposition from where this argument arises.<\/p>\n

4:31 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker quotes the para and further states that she is unaware of the difference in procedure in the concerned jurisdictions.
\n4:33 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Another panellist asks a question while quoting from the memorial presented by the respondent.
\n4:34 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Listening to the speaker’s answer, the judge is evidently not convinced and further seeks clarification. The speaker continues to defend, though it does not seem very successfully.
\n4:35 PM<\/strong><\/span> The third panellist alleges that the counsel has simply made a presumption without any basis to prove why.
\n4:37 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker is said to have been harping on a presumption, having “proven nothing”.
\n4:38 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker keeps beating around the bush without any convincing argument.
\n4:39 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The judge gives her 30 seconds to convince the bench regarding her present contention.
\n4:41 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker takes a moment for herself. She defends her argument, the judge obviously not satisfied.
\n4:42 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Since the allotted time has now elapsed, an additional 2 minutes is granted to the speaker to conclude the last argument.
\n4:43 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker uses up her additional time and the time for surrebuttals. The court clerk is forced to interrupt at this point.
\n4:45 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel takes another minute to wrap up her speech. She is denied permission to say the prayer.
\n4:46 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench provides each side an additional 1 minute each for rebuttals and surrebuttals, even after the court has used up the time for the same.
\n4:46 PM <\/strong><\/span>the appellant’s side starts with the rebuttals. She uses one minute and a few additional seconds.
\n4:47 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 1 of the respondent’s side provides the bench with the surrebuttals. He is tasked with answering 4 questions that were posed by the other side. He answers 2 but forgets to address the remaining questions. Before he could be reminded of that, his allotted time is completed.
\n4:50 PM<\/strong> <\/span>With this, the round has come to an end. The court clerk asks the participants to leave the meeting to provide space for the judges to deliberate. Round 2B of the prelims comes to an end.<\/p>\n

Court Room 6B<\/h4>\n

3:31 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk opens the proceeding with an introduction and basic instructions.
\n3:32 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 1 of team 31, the appellants’ side, opens the case with a firm statement.
\n3:33 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker lists the two major sub-issues of his side.
\n3:34 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel remains firm while stating the facts and relevant case laws.
\n3:35 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The bench interrupts the speaker and asks him to define the term ‘turnover’ from the Competition Act.
\n3:37 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel seems at a loss of words at the question asked to him and is allowed to proceed ahead with his contentions.<\/p>\n

3:38 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel seems convincing in his approach but it’s difficult to read the reaction of the bench.
\n3:40 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker proceeds with his speech and asks permission to put forth the third issue.
\n3:41 PM The speaker is articulate in his approach of presenting issues and presents in quite a structured manner.
\n3:42 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel interrupts the speaker to demand clarification about his stance on certain facts.
\n3:44 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel intends to move ahead with his contentious argument, promptly stating his arguments; though he seems to falter and appears a bit rushed.
\n3:46 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The bench poses no further questions and the counsel strives toward the second limb of his argument.
\n3:47 PM<\/strong> <\/span>CCI judgements are stated by the counsel to further affirm his stance on the case.<\/p>\n

3:48 PM<\/strong><\/span> The clerk notifies the participant about his allotted time being elapsed. The counsel is granted an extension of 1 minute to summarize his arguments.
\n3:50 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker concludes his arguments and thanks the panel for their time. Speaker 2 from team 31 starts off with his speech.
\n3:51 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker is intimidating and powerful in his speech and quite thorough with the facts of the memorial.
\n3:53 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel states specific tests and commissions to reaffirm that their contention does not claim to be ‘indispensable.’
\n3:54 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker is asked by the bench to read out several paragraphs of their submitted memorial.
\n3:56 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker asks for a minute to re-establish his views on the matter. He cites cases relevant to his issue before the bench.<\/p>\n

3:57 PM<\/strong><\/span> The bench seems staunch to deconstruct the appellant side on their muddled definitions.
\n3:58 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel confirms that he would answer the query posed by the judges in his discussion of the second issue. The bench seems unconvinced but allow him to continue anyway.
\n4:01 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel serves reports from the Raghavan Committee surveys and attempts to address the panel’s query.
\n4:02 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel moves to the second issue of his case. The clerk informs that 29 minutes in total for the appellant’s side is over.
\n4:04 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker’s time is over but he is given 2 minutes to answer the panel’s question and brief his side’s contentions.
\n4:06 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel makes his prayer to the bench.
\n4:07 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from team 15, the respondents’ side, opens her case.
\n4:08 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker is firm and concrete before the panel and maintains a confident demeanour.<\/p>\n

4:10 PM<\/strong><\/span> Counsel states provisions from the Competition Act and is further questioned by the bench on the same.
\n4:12 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker cites case laws to support her contentions. One of the judges alleges that the speaker is stretching the definition.
\n4:14 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The bench engages in cross-questioning with the counsel and does not seem satisfied with her answer.
\n4:15 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is ordered to move ahead with her arguments.
\n4:16 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker is willing to offer answers to the queries of the bench, the judges however do not seem to agree.
\n4:17 PM<\/strong> <\/span>She moves on to address the next issue.
\n4:19 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker calmly states more of her arguments and the statues that her side relies on.
\n4:20 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel seeks permission to move on with the fourth issue of her argument.
\n4:21 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker answers the panel on their confusions and asks for an extension to complete her arguments. The extension is granted by the honourable bench.<\/p>\n

4:23 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is notified that she needs to abandon the dais as it would cut short her co-counsel’s time. However, she demands one more minute.
\n4:25 PM<\/strong><\/span> One of the judges poses a query but is dissatisfied by her response; he calls for the next speaker.
\n4:26 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 2 of team 15, from the side of respondents, takes over and opens his arguments.
\n4:27 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker accuses the appellant’s side for half-representation of essential facts.
\n4:28 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker is guided to refer to certain sections of the Competition Act. The panel again highlights the confusion over the definition of ‘turnover.’
\n4:30 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The appellant’s side is instructed by the bench to address the same in their rebuttals.<\/p>\n

4:31 PM<\/strong><\/span> Meanwhile, the respondents’ counsel affirms their stance and several arguments reappear in the speech of the second speaker.
\n4:32 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel is reminded of the clock and he wills to commit to his stance within 2 minutes.
\n4:33 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The judges question the speaker over the binding authority of the civil procedure code.
\n4:35 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker seems diluted in his speech and thrown off by the perplexing questions of the bench.<\/p>\n

4:36 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk chimes in with notification of overtime.
\n4:37 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The appellant’s offer to present rebuttals but are reminded of their lack of time. The bench asks one of their speakers to sum up in 30 seconds.
\n4:38 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The respondents are called in for a response from their side.
\n4:39 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker is asked to quickly go over her rebuttals as the proceedings are running short on time.
\n4:40 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The bench states the main contentions for the respondents and demands an answer on the matter of indensepensibility. The clerk announces the conclusion of the round. With this, round 2B of the prelims comes to an end.<\/p>\n

Court Room 7B<\/h4>\n

3:17 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Court Clerk asks the Team members to switch on their cameras.
\n3:19 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The presence of one of the Judges is awaited. The Court Clerk thereby announces that the round will commence soon.<\/p>\n

3:25 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Court Clerk reiterates the basic rules.
\n3:26 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 1 from Team 32 appears. She explains that she will be dealing with two of the issues and the other two will be dealt with by her co-counsel.
\n3:27 PM<\/strong> <\/span>One of the Judges asks her to state the facts that are relevant to the case. The Speaker goes on to state the facts.
\n3:28 PM<\/strong> <\/span>She begins with the first issue pertaining to cartelisation.
\n3:29 PM<\/strong> <\/span>One of the Judges interrupts her and asks for an explanation of the meaning of ‘explicit agreement’. He further questions whether the same is as per the law or her deduction. She answers the questions concisely and confidently and thereafter proceeds with her arguments.
\n3:31 PM<\/strong> <\/span>A Judge objects to her citing a case from the Competition Commission of India. He asks her to quote either a higher body or a parallel one in this regard. She agrees with him but fails to cite any such judgement at the moment.
\n3:34 PM<\/strong> <\/span>She cites some case laws pertaining to cartelisation. She then invokes the ‘right to representation’ and the principles of natural justice.
\n3:36 PM<\/strong><\/span> She is questioned by one of the Judges on the principles of natural justice and whether they apply to adjudicatory bodies or investigative bodies. She provides an answer to the question but seems to be confused in parts.
\n3:38 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Another Judge adds to the question. To answer him, she mentions that she believes her answer to be true. Not being convinced by this answer, the other Judge demands some authoritative argument from her.
\n3:39 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The Court Clerk reminds the Bench of the paucity of time and leaves it to the discretion of the Judges to allow extra time to the Speaker. The Judges allow her a few seconds to wrap up her arguments.
\n3:40 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 1 concludes her stance and departs.<\/p>\n

3:41 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 from Team 32 is not audible because of connectivity issues. The Judges graciously allow him a couple of minutes to sort out the glitches and join.
\n3:43 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 2 appears. He seeks the permission of the Bench to proceed directly with the arguments since the facts are already known to the Court. The Bench permits it and the Speaker starts with the explanation of ‘abuse of dominant power’.
\n3:44 PM<\/strong> <\/span>One of the Judges asks him whether there is a necessity for a dominant position in cases of anti-competitive agreements. The Counsel tries to respond but unfortunately, he is not properly audible.<\/p>\n

3:45 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 loses the connection in between and is not visible to the Judges now. Considering the persisting technical issue, the Judges allow him to keep his video switched off.
\n3:46 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The Speaker is now intermittently inaudible. However, he is trying to make some points in his favour.
\n3:49 PM<\/strong><\/span> He is questioned by one of the Judges on ‘matters of public interest’ and the jurisdiction of CCI. The Speaker is not able to provide a seemingly satisfactory answer to the questions.
\n3:51 PM<\/strong><\/span> He gets cross-questioned over and over again. The Speaker is now sounding significantly underconfident than earlier. The Judges are displeased. He mentions a case law here of which one of the Judges wishes to know the facts. The Counsel pleads ignorance.
\n3:53 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The Speaker explains ‘vertical agreements’ and ‘refusal to deal’ now and cites a relevant case.
\n3:55 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The Court Counsel reminds the Speaker that only a minute remains for him to present his remaining arguments.
\n3:56 PM<\/strong> <\/span>He mentions the ‘de minimis’ exception and is asked by one of the Judges to explain the exception. Although he answers the question, the Judge once again does not seem contented.<\/p>\n

3:58 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 briefly presents the Prayer and departs.
\n3:59 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 1 from Team 16 appears and greets the Bench. She proceeds with her arguments and presents the Compendium.
\n4:00 PM<\/strong> <\/span>One of the Judges asks her to explain why the case should not be entertained. She goes on to explain the reasons but her arguments lack fluency.
\n4:01 PM<\/strong> <\/span>She proceeds with her first argument. She deals with AAEC and also mentions Article 39 of the Constitution of India to substantiate her argument.
\n4:04 PM<\/strong> <\/span>She now deals with the second issue pertaining to ‘notifications’, but is asked by one of the Judges to slow down. She does the needful.
\n4:05 PM<\/strong> <\/span>She draws the attention of the Bench towards Annexure-1 of the moot proposition and Schedule 1 of the Competition Act, 2002. She sounds confident and clear.
\n4:07 PM<\/strong> <\/span>A Judge questions her on ‘control’. She tries to explain it but instantly gets cross-questioned.<\/p>\n

4:09 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Judge questions her on the facts given in the proposition; she is asked to clarify the shares of the two companies in each other. She mentions that the fact sheet is silent on this but the Judge questions her again after which she tries to come up with an answer.
\n4:11 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The Judge is very firm in his stance with respect to the interpretation of the word ‘control’. He questions her multiple times due to which the Counsel pleads ignorance.
\n4:12 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The Court Clerk reminds her of the paucity of time.
\n4:13 PM<\/strong> <\/span>She presents another set of arguments pertaining to ‘right of representation’ and cites a case. One of the Judges questions her here. The Counsel seeks extension of the allotted to answer the said question and is granted the same.
\n4:15 PM<\/strong> <\/span>She answers the question, but the Judge does not look satisfied. Another Judge adds to the question here. She appears very confused while answering the latter and seeks extension yet again to answer the question. She is provided an extension for the second time.
\n4:17 PM<\/strong> <\/span>While she is responding to the above question, one of the Judges questions her. She is unable to provide a satisfactory response to the question.
\n4:18 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 1 departs.
\n4:18 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 from Team 16 appears and greets the Bench. She shares the Compendium with relevant portions highlighted. She begins her arguments and appears poised.
\n4:20 PM<\/strong> <\/span>She is questioned by one of the Judges. She answers the question. She is initially confident with her response but that feeling seems to be diminishing now.
\n4:22 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Another Judge questions her on the presence of a cartel. She replies, unable to convince the judge.
\n4:24 PM<\/strong> <\/span>She continues to explain ‘cartelisation’. While explaining a particular case, she gets stuck in between.<\/p>\n

4:25 PM<\/strong><\/span> She cites certain Sections of the Competition Act that are relevant in this regard. She quotes another case pertaining to IPR and Anti-Competitive Agreements.
\n4:27 PM<\/strong> <\/span>One of the Judges asks her to state the case in which the particular test was coined. She does mention a case, but gets confused when the Judge asks whether it was ‘laid down’ in the case that she cited or was it ‘used’ in the same.
\n4:29 PM<\/strong> <\/span>While trying to answer the question, she feels some irritation in her throat and seeks the permission of the Bench to drink some water. The Judges permit her instantaneously after which she continues with her response.
\n4:31 PM<\/strong> <\/span>One of the Judges poses a question to her on patentability of COVID-19 drugs and the issues concerned. She takes up the question and the Judge appears fairly convinced with the response.
\n4:33 PM<\/strong><\/span> She seeks an extension to summarize her arguments which is thereby permitted for by the bench.
\n4:34 PM <\/strong><\/span>She presents the Prayer.
\n4:36 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 2 from Team 16 departs.
\n4:37 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The Court Clerk informs the Teams that Team 32 has three minutes left for rebuttals, but Team 16 does not have any. Speaker 1 from Team 32 appears and questions the opposing team. She is asked by the Bench to proceed with the rebuttals, if any, and not raise questions.
\n4:38 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 1 from Team 32 mentions that there are no rebuttals.
\n4:39 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The Court Clerk extends his vote of thanks to all the participants.
\n4:40 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The Round is concluded.<\/p>\n

Quarter-Finals<\/h3>\n

Court Room 1<\/h4>\n

6:30 PM<\/strong><\/span> The participants join the meeting and are asked by the court clerk to intimate him about their time breakups for respective speakers. The court clerk asks the participants to do a mic and camera check.
\n6:37 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judges are awaited.<\/p>\n

6:41 PM<\/strong><\/span> One of the judges seeks clarification regarding the time breakouts of the participants.
\n6:43 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk informed the courtroom about the rules that are to be followed.<\/p>\n

6:44 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 of Team 02 seeks the panel’s permission and starts with her contentions.
\n6:46 PM<\/strong><\/span> As the counsel proceeds, she is intervened by the bench to clarify the source of the information mentioned in her contention. The same was answered swiftly.
\n6:49 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel proceeds with the next issue.
\n6:50 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The bench interrupts the counsel and asks a question regarding ‘investigation’ under the Competition Act.<\/p>\n

6:52 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel faces a line of questions from the bench, one of them in respect of the ‘right to privacy’ as mentioned by the counsel in the memo. The counsel answers the question with ease.
\n6:54 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel supports her contention with a European landmark case.
\n6:55 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel elucidates on the importance of the presence of a lawyer during the deposition in relation to the case at hand.
\n7:00 PM<\/strong> <\/span>To support her contentions, the counsel cites numerous case laws. The bench turns to ask a more detailed question regarding the presence of a lawyer in the investigation phase under the Competition Act. The bench doesn’t seem to be pleased with the counsel’s answer and responds that the counsel, in his opinion is, “extrapolating” the rule in her case.<\/p>\n

7:03 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 of team 2 takes the stage to continue with the next issues.
\n7:05 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The councel proceeds with her contentions, but her confidence seems to shake off due to the cross-questioning of the bench on the relevance of her arguments. The speaker apologises and moves to the next argument.<\/p>\n

7:08 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker gradually gains momentum in advancing her arguments. She is interrupted mid-speech by the panel, questioning her regarding the “circumstantial evidence” in the case. The counsel responds to the best of her capabilities.
\n7:13 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is grilled by the esteemed panel, however, the former engages with the bench with sheer conviction.<\/p>\n

7:18 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker moves to her next contention regarding anti-competitive agreements under the Competition Act. The bench poses questions and asks the counsel to present a judicial precedent to substantiate her case. The speaker tries to support her argument with a case law but not with much ease.
\n7:24 PM<\/strong><\/span> The honourable judges ask the counsel to conclude her arguments due to time constraints.
\n7:27 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel asks for an extension of time and the bench allows it.
\n7:28 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel is abruptly stopped by the bench as she exceeded her granted time.
\n7:29 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 of Team 27 comes to the stage and explains the structure of her speech.<\/p>\n

7:30 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker begins with her issues.
\n7:32 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel now explains the relevant facts and ratio of multiple cases to substantiate her contention. She further indulges in some concepts that are most relevant to her case, especially related to “turnover”.
\n7:35 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The bench asks a question on jurisprudential grounds. The same is answered by the counsel in a two-fold manner. She also presents a difference between Europe and India regarding the aspects of Competition Law. Her explanations are backed by law commission reports, statutory enactments and judicial pronouncements.
\n7:39 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The judge questions the counsel whether her contention can be backed by any authority and if yes, then what is the authority. The counsel tries to explain herself but the bench doesn’t seem to be satisfied by the response.<\/p>\n

7:42 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel continues with the next issue.
\n7:47 PM<\/strong> <\/span>A line of questioning emerges, regarding the presence of a lawyer during the investigation and section 36 of the Competition Act which is based on the natural justice principle.
\n7:50 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The court clerk intimates about the exhaustion of time that is allotted to the counsel.
\n7:50 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel is permitted a minute to conclude her arguments.<\/p>\n

7:51 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is abruptly stopped by the panel due to a shortage of time.
\n7:52 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 of Team 27 takes the dais and moves forward with the issues.
\n7:54 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel’s issue focuses on “cartelisation”. The judge enquires regarding the conflict between Intellectual Property Rights (especially patents) and Competition Law. The counsel gladly answers the same by citing a case law. One of the other judges doesn’t completely concur with the counsel’s explanation, to which the latter requests to come back at a later stage.
\n7:59 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel continues with his proceedings. He explains cartelisation with a technical concept of “Hub and Spoke Model”, the panel asks about the relevancy of the concept in the case at hand.<\/p>\n

8:04 PM<\/strong><\/span> With the permission of the honourable judges, counsel begins with his next issue. He substantiates his reasoning with case laws.
\n8:08 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel overcomes the ardous line of questioning with brilliant advocacy.
\n8:09 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel seeks permission for the researcher to share his screen for displaying relevant information. But since there is paucity of time, permission for the same was denied.
\n8:11 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel elucidates on the “margin-squeezing” and concludes his arguments on cartelisation.
\n8:12 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel wraps up his arguments within the allotted time and recites his prayer. Hence, he rests his case.
\n8:13 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Court clerks inform that both the teams have reserved their respective rebuttal times.
\n8:14 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 2 of team 02 present their rebuttals. The rebuttals are organised into pointers. The rebuttal mainly focusses the “margin-squeezing”, “essential facilities doctrine”.
\n8:17 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 2 of team 27 responds to the rebuttals regarding both the concepts of margin squeezing and essential facilities. The response is given in background of an oligopolistic market.<\/p>\n

8:19 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk declares that this quarterfinals round is concluded and the court is adjourned.
\n8:20 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel gives their valuable feedback. The feedback is regarding the pace of speech and how to respond to questions by the judges.<\/p>\n

8:21 PM<\/strong><\/span> The participants seem to be content with the feedback of the honourable bench.
\n8:22 PM<\/strong><\/span> With this, the quarterfinal round comes to an end.<\/p>\n

Court Room 2<\/h4>\n

6:28 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The Court Clerk asks the respective members of Team 1 and Team 12 to send in their time break up for the individual speakers.
\n6:32 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from Team 1 and Speaker 1 from Team 12 inform the Court Clerk of the same.<\/p>\n

6:41 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Court Clerk greets the participants and goes on to reiterate the basic rules to them.<\/p>\n

6:43 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from Team 12 appears. He greets the Bench and seeks permission to share the Team’s Compendium.
\n6:44 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The Counsel provides a framework of the appellant’s side’s arguments.
\n6:45 PM<\/strong> <\/span>He begins with his first submission. Here, he focuses on Section 5 and Section 6 of the Competition Act, 2002. He is confident and eloquent.
\n6:46 PM<\/strong> <\/span>He requests the Researcher to move to the next page. He draws the attention of the Bench towards Annexure-1.<\/p>\n

6:48 PM<\/strong><\/span> One of the Judges interrupts the Speaker and questions him on AAEC and notification of the transaction. He tries to answer the question confidently but is met with more cross-questions.
\n6:49 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Counsel now seems to falter from his previous confidence. However, he is asked to proceed with his arguments.
\n6:50 PM<\/strong><\/span> Another Judge questions him on ‘non-notification’. He invokes the de minimus exemption.
\n6:51 PM<\/strong><\/span> Just as the Speaker begins to further his arguments, one of the panellists interrupts him. As the Counsel had cited the Eli Lilly and Company case, the panel draws his attention to Paragraph 45 of the said judgement. He tries to explain, but the panel does not appear content with his response.
\n6:54 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker pushes through and goes on to explain anti-competitive agreements and entry barriers in relevant markets. He cites a relevant case law.<\/p>\n

6:55 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel now bases his arguments on Section 20(4) of the Competition Act. He mentions the recommendations and findings of the Raghavan Committee. He cites a case concerned with the CCI to substantiate his argument.
\n6:57 PM<\/strong> <\/span>He proceeds with his second submission on the role of the CCI in this regard. He takes the Jyoti Swaroop Arora Case and elaborates on it for clarity.
\n6:59 PM<\/strong> <\/span>He is questioned by the panel on this argument. Although the Counsel is articulate in his response, the panel cross-questions him.
\n7:01 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Another Judge poses a question to him. He pleads ignorance here but assures the Judge that the same will be dealt with in detail by his Co-Counsel.<\/p>\n

7:02 PM<\/strong><\/span> The former panellist remains firm on her stance from 6:59 PM. She poses a number of questions to him. While the Counsel tries his best to respond, he gets faced with another round of cross-questioning. the speaker falters at some questions and the bench seems dissatisfied.
\n7:03 PM<\/strong><\/span> He requests a minute to wrap up his arguments.
\n7:06 PM<\/strong> <\/span>One of the Judges questions him again with respect to a specific case. He attempts to answer it and requests 30 seconds for the same. However, he is denied an extension.
\n7:06 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 departs.
\n7:07 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 2 from Team 12 comes forth and starts with his submissions.
\n7:08 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The panels interrupts him for cross-questioning. He is asked to distinguish an ‘investigation’ from an ‘enquiry’. The Counsel appears slightly nervous at this intervention.<\/p>\n

7:10 PM<\/strong><\/span> Another Judge adds to the question and the Counsel struggles to answer her. However, he does make a rather insufficient effort to do so and gets extensively cross-questioned.
\n7:12 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The Judge is quite assertive with her questions. The Counsel appears confused for a few seconds.
\n7:13 PM<\/strong> <\/span>He asks the Researcher to move to another page. He now bases his arguments on the contents of the page and cites a case law.
\n7:14 PM<\/strong> <\/span>He is questioned by the bench on ‘right to argue before the Director General’. He tries his best to answer the question but is interrupted yet again.
\n7:16 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The Counsel is not very clear with his arguments now. He is fairly nervous and visibly falters several times.
\n7:17 PM<\/strong> <\/span>He is interrupted by one of the Judges who asks him to explain the relevance of principles of natural justice with the case at hand. To answer this question, he cites a case. When asked by the Judge to project the case, the Counsel pleads ignorance.<\/p>\n

7:18 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker attempts to explain the particulars of ‘cartelisation’ and cites another relevant case law.
\n7:20 PM<\/strong> <\/span>He is questioned on ‘exchange of information’ by one of the Judges. He assays to provide an explanation but is interrupted.
\n7:22 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Another Judge questions the counsel. He invokes the MFN Clause and is cross-questioned by another Judge on ‘allegation of cartelisation pertaining to AAEC’.
\n7<\/strong>:24 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Counsel appears panic-stricken and asks her to repeat the question. The Judge remains stern and poses a set of questions before him.<\/p>\n

7:26 PM<\/strong><\/span> He endeavours to respond, but the Bench is not satisfied. The Bench asks him to continue with his arguments. He does the needful.
\n7:28 PM<\/strong><\/span> He quotes some case laws but gets cut in by one of the Judges. He is apparently perplexed but seeks an extension of one minute to respond to the question and sum up his arguments. The Bench provides him with an extension.
\n7:31 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Panel asks the Researcher to point out the exact paragraphs from the moot memo which support his arguments.
\n7:32 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Counsel presents the Prayer and departs.<\/p>\n

7:33 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from Team 1 takes the stage. He is set to deal with the first two issues from the respondent’s side. He provides a lucid set of statements ranging from ‘jurisdictional thresholds’ to the ‘consolidated annual report’.
\n7:35 PM<\/strong><\/span> He is questioned on the ‘consolidated annual report’ by one of the Judges. The panellist brings up the de minimus exemption before the counsel and asks if he is conveniently ignoring certain facts involving ‘enterprises’. He is firm and confident in his response.
\n7:38 PM<\/strong><\/span> He structures his arguments on Section 6 of the Competition Act, 2002.<\/p>\n

7:41 PM<\/strong><\/span> He provides his second contention and substantiates it with relevant case laws.
\n7:45 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Bench questions if there is any Section of the CrPC that deals with ‘deposition’. The Counsel answers in the negative.
\n7:46 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The Bench corrects the counsel and asks him about Section 164 of the CrPC. He pleads ignorance and seeks some time to go through the Section. The Bench considers his request.
\n7:47 PM<\/strong><\/span> However, the speaker states that the Section is quite lengthy. To this, the panel itself shares Section 164 of the CrPC and reads it. Cross-questioning ensues.<\/p>\n

7:51 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Counsel is badly stuck now that the panellist has interrupted him. To quote the Judge, she “would like to stop the Counsel before he ruins his own case” and poses another question.
\n7:53 PM<\/strong><\/span> Another Judge questions the Counsel. He fails to provide a decent answer to the question. Displeased, the Judge asks him to continue with his arguments.
\n7:54 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Counsel wraps up his arguments and departs.
\n7:55 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 from Team 1 appears. He presents his first argument.
\n7:56 PM<\/strong><\/span> He is questioned by one of the Judges. She asks him to explain the relevance, if any, between ‘historic pricing data’ and ‘price sensitive information’.
\n7:57 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel seeks to answer the question using relevant case laws. Another Judge questions him on AAEC. He effectively answers the question and proceeds with with arguments.
\n8:00 PM<\/strong><\/span> He is questioned by the panel on ‘efficiency agreements’ in the European Union pertaining to horizontal agreements. He pleads ignorance. The Judge elaborates on this and mentions the ‘Rule of Reason’. The Counsel then explains the ‘Rule of Reason’.
\n8:04 PM<\/strong><\/span> He moves on to the fourth issue which pertains to the decision of the CCI. He elaborates on vertical agreements, and refusal to deal.
\n8:05 PM<\/strong><\/span> He gets questioned by a Judge on facts.
\n8:06 PM<\/strong><\/span> While he is trying to answer the question, another Judge interjects. She raises “preponderance of probability”.<\/p>\n

8:09 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Counsel falters while responding. The Judge asks him to proceed with his arguments.
\n8:11 PM<\/strong> <\/span>At this point, he is being questioned by two Judges. Although trying his best here, the Counsel appears on edge. However, he remains firm.
\n8:15 PM<\/strong> <\/span>One of the Judges interrupts him, and he pleads ignorance. He is questioned by another Judge on the Motorola case. He is unaware of the same.
\n8:16 PM<\/strong> <\/span>He presents the Prayer.
\n8:17 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 2 from Team 1 departs.
\n8:18 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Rebuttals begin. Speaker 1 from Team 12 rebuts two arguments and invites his Co-Counsel.
\n8:19 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 2 from Team 12 appears. He, too, rebuts two arguments.
\n8:20 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The Bench asks him to repeat one of his arguments since one of the Judges had temporarily faced some connectivity issue. The Bench allows him an extension of 30 seconds.<\/p>\n

8:22 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Counsel rests the rebuttals.
\n8:22 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 1 from Team 1 provides a structure for his two rebuttals. The Bench asks him to skip the first rebuttal and proceed with the second one. He, therefore, presents the second rebuttal and departs.
\n8:23 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 2 from Team 1 rebuts some points.
\n8:26 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 2 rests the surrebuttals.<\/p>\n

8:29 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court is adjourned and the esteemed Judges provide some valuable feedback to the speakers. With this, the quaterfinal round comes to an end.<\/p>\n

Court Room 3<\/h4>\n

6:30 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Courtroom eagerly awaits the arrival of a few participants and the Bench before commencing, meanwhile, the court clerk gives clarifications regarding the rules to the participants present.
\n6:42 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judges and participants have assembled. After the court clerk offers a few more clarifications, she is asked by the judge for an introduction of the entire bench.<\/p>\n

6:45 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 from Team 19 representing the appellant addresses the bench and proceeds to deliver his arguments regarding the issues of the case.
\n6:47 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel delivers his arguments confidently and swiftly while referring to the intention of the Competition Act and its relevance to the pertaining case.
\n6:50 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Counsel is questioned regarding the definition of a term from the Companies Act by one of the judges and he reads out the same before tackling a subsequent array of questions.<\/p>\n

6:53 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel moves to the next argument while referring to several relevant and important provisions of the legislation.
\n6:58 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is interrupted by the judge regarding a contention related to the proposition. He is further asked to provide more clarification regarding his contention which he tries his best to answer but is directed by the respected judges to move on with his arguments due to failure of clarity in his contention.
\n7:04 PM<\/strong><\/span> After a few more back and forth cross-questions, the judge informs the counsel that he is making broad assumptions on which his contentions are based.<\/p>\n

7:09 PM<\/strong><\/span> While providing further justifications the time allotted to Speaker 01 comes to an end. Speaker 2 of Team 19 comes forth to present his arguments.<\/p>\n

7:13 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel seems to be confidently delivering his arguments while answering a few cross-questions from the respected bench. However one of the judges points out a fallacy in his answer. The team researcher is further directed to highlight a relevant case to support the counsel’s argument.
\n7:15 PM<\/strong> <\/span>After a brief pause the Researcher for the team reads out the relevant judgements cited in the memorandum. The judge starts a new line of questioning which the counsel tries his best to answer, however, he is unable to meet his satisfaction.
\n7:23 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel pleads to move on to the next contention on the part of his team, where he ensures to provide further clarifications. The bench allows the same.<\/p>\n

7:27 PM<\/strong><\/span> After listening to the arguments put forth by the counsel, a judge poses a few more questions regarding the contentions being introduced.
\n7:28 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The Court Clerk indicates the end of the counsel’s allocated time and the counsel concludes his arguments.
\n7:30 PM<\/strong> <\/span>A short break has been followed after the agreement of the respected bench before we begin with the Respondent’s arguments.
\n7:35 PM<\/strong> <\/span>We resume with the Quarter Final round.
\n7:37 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 1 from Team 30, representing the Respondent, commences his arguments.
\n7:39 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel categorically presents his first argument divided into three prompts before moving to his second argument.
\n7:43 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel seems to satisfactorily tackle a question posed by a judge before presenting his third argument.<\/p>\n

7:46 PM<\/strong><\/span> A question regarding clarification of an agreement is posted by one of the judges which requires the counsel to reiterate his first argument once again. However, he seems to be unable to succeed in convincing the judge.
\n7:49 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel moves forward with his subsequent arguments.
\n7:53 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel provides the respected bench with multiple case laws to support his final argument. The judge exhibits a look of satisfaction after getting a more comprehensive clarification regarding the earlier contention.<\/p>\n

7:57 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel takes on an entirely new line of questioning as his speaking time comes to an end.
\n8:00 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 2 from Team 30 takes the stand to further their case.
\n8:05 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel precisely lays down her argument supported by legal principles and case laws before being posed by a question from one of the judges regarding the relevancy of a case mentioned by her.
\n8:10 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel is posed with a line of questioning from the judge for which she seems to fail in providing a satisfactory response.<\/p>\n

8:16 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel while moving forward with her next argument faces a new line of questioning which she tries her best to respond to. However, a misstep in her answer leads to the judge questioning the relevance of her claims.
\n8:22 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel tries to conclude her final arguments but gets interrupted by certain questions directed by the judges to achieve more clarity regarding the counsel’s primary contention.<\/p>\n

8:25 PM<\/strong><\/span> Due to technical issues the counsel is disconnected from the virtual platform. The court clerk indicates that the counsel is running on extra time.
\n8:27 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel has won over the technical hurdles only to encounter even more obstructions in the form of a new array of questions from the bench.<\/p>\n

8:29 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judge seems to be agitated by the councel’s attempt to confuse the learned bench. She pleads an apology and redirects towards the main question but gets stopped by the court clerk as her time comes to an end.
\n8:30 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk announces both the teams have exhausted their extra time, however, the judges allow for one minute for rebuttals.
\n8:31 PM<\/strong><\/span> The Counsel for the appellant rushes to direct multiple heated rebuttals towards the respondents.
\n8:34 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The Counsel for respondent tries his best to respond to as many issues as he could but due to shortage of time directs remaining rebutals to the co-counsel who responds to them but gets interupted by the judge as the extra time allowed has also been exhausted.
\n8:35 PM<\/strong><\/span> We conclude with the Quarter Final Round.<\/p>\n

Court Room 4<\/h4>\n

6:51 PM<\/strong><\/span> The virtual courtroom has opened up as the two teams and the judges have joined. In this quarterfinal matchup, it is Team 20 taking on Team 26.<\/p>\n

6:54 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk gives a brief reminder of the important rules and guidelines to take note of before the virtual hearing commences.<\/p>\n

6:56 PM<\/strong><\/span> The first speaker begins his speech with a brief introduction of the facts. With further permission from the panel, he starts stating his arguments.<\/p>\n

6:57 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker discusses the first issue on the right to have a lawyer in the present case and goes on to clarify that the relevant provisions have been mentioned in the written submission.
\n7:00 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker is asked by the panel about the relevance of the principle of natural justice that he has talked about in the present scenario. In reply to this, the speaker tries to respond by stating some case laws. He is once again interrupted regarding the relevancy of the presented case laws. He responds to each question calmly.<\/p>\n

7:04 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker discusses certain provisions to further solidify his stance but the panel once again questions the relevancy of such provisions. The speaker articulately answers the repeated queries posed by the panel.
\n7:09 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The panel questions the speaker on the issue of illegality and also if there are any statutory rights for the lawyer to be present at the site of occurrence. The speaker cites the relevant provisions from the Advocates Act, 1960 to support his argument.
\n7:11 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judges ask the speaker to give a previous example where a lawyer was allowed to be present near the site of occurrence. The speaker cites the case of Vijay Sajani vs Union of India to support his argument.<\/p>\n

7:14 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker continues with his third submission based on cartelization with the assent of the panel. Meanwhile, one of the panellists desires to check the relevance of a case law previously mentioned by the speaker.
\n7:17 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker is repeatedly counter questioned by the panel regarding the oversimplification of contention related to the proposition. He tries to beat around the bush which leaves the panel unimpressed. The speaker further seeks permission to move on to his next submission.<\/p>\n

7:22 PM<\/strong><\/span> A further discussion ensues when the panel asks the speaker about the purpose of sharing certain pieces of information such as pricing strategies and customer retention policy. The speaker tries his best to respond but the panel keeps on discussing the loopholes in the speaker’s reasoning. After some discussion, the speaker asks for permission to move on to his next submission. The panel agrees but seems dissatisfied in this regard.<\/p>\n

7:28 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel has a discussion with the speaker about the validity of implied and expressed agreements based on a certain cement cartelization case, after which, with due permission, the speaker moves on to the last leg of his speech.<\/p>\n

7:31 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker discusses the relevant provisions of the Competition Act while discussing the first and third issues.
\n7:32 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The first speaker finishes his speech.
\n7:33 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The second speaker, with permission from the panel, begins his speech by discussing his first submission.<\/p>\n

7:34 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel discuss the anti-competitive practice based on the facts mentioned in the moot proposition with the speaker.
\n7:39 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker cites section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 while discussing the facts of the case. Although the speaker tries to calmly provide an answer, the apparent loopholes are caught hold of by the panel and the judges seem dissatisfied with the answer.<\/p>\n

7:42 PM<\/strong><\/span> Meanwhile, the court clerk notifies of the exhaustion of the time allotted to the team. The speaker takes note of the same and continues with the permission of the panel.
\n7:48 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker is now fashionably past the allotted time. He states his prayer in front of the court (which apparently has an omission as mentioned by the panel) before resting his case.
\n7:50 PM<\/strong><\/span> speaker 1 from the respondent’s side is incurring some connection issues due to which the proceeding has been put to a brief halt.
\n7:54 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The first speaker gives a brief overview of the structure of her arguments.
\n7:55 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The panel finds out an anomaly in the written submission for which he seeks clarification from the speaker. The speaker acknowledges it but confidently assures that their actual arguments will be short of any such loopholes. With this touch of confidence, she begins with her submissions.<\/p>\n

7:58 PM<\/strong><\/span> A detailed exchange regarding the term “turnover” emerges between the panel and the speaker. The panel asks the speaker to focus on the revenue generated in India. They further mention section 5 of the Competition Act and ask the speaker to clarify the same. The speaker firmly presents her stance.<\/p>\n

8:05 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker proceeds ahead with her next argument on the right to have a lawyer in the case. Another healthy exchange of laws and principles ensues between the panel and the speaker where the speaker tries to provide reasoning for the fact that a lawyer may tamper with the process of investigation. The panel strongly disagrees on the same and provides various counter-arguments to support their claim. The speaker, however, is also firm in her stance. Although, upon being asked whether a lawyer can be present during deposition, the speaker pleads ignorance.
\n8:15 PM<\/strong><\/span> speaker 1 concludes her speech.
\n8:16 PM<\/strong><\/span> The second speaker from the respondent side begins her speech.<\/p>\n

8:17 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker discusses the points of customer retention, pricing strategy, and agreement. The panel asks her to establish the validity of her contentions and she gives her best shot at the same. She discusses various observations to support her line of reasoning.
\n8:22 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker discusses the violation of section 3 of the Competition Act. The panel asks how can sharing data affect the pricing strategy and also checks the relevance of one of her contentions regarding the same. The speaker tries to provide the best possible answers to the queries posed to her.<\/p>\n

8:27 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker discusses cartelization. She refers to Section 19(3) while explaining the characteristics of the market and at the same time stressing upon its oligopolistic aspects. When she was asked to summarize her stance on this issue, she does so succinctly.
\n8:31 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Moving on to the next issue, the speaker expands on the aspects of manufacturing of AI chips, abuse of dominance by the patent holder, substitution, and the relevant market (based both on product and geographical area). All of these aspects are being deliberated upon by the panel and the speaker in great detail.<\/p>\n

8:36 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel asks which provisions according to the speaker have been violated. The speaker wants to discuss sections 3, 4, and 19 of the Competition Act. The panel disagrees and says that section 4 is not relevant to the discussion. The panel further states if the argument does not come under section 4, then it would also not come under section 3 of the aforementioned Act.
\n8:40 PM<\/strong><\/span> Meanwhile, the court clerk notifies of the exhaustion of the time allotted to the team. The speaker takes note of the same and continues with the permission of the panel.<\/p>\n

8:43 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel question the speaker’s stance of coming up with new findings at this stage of argumentation since initially these findings were not mentioned in the written submissions. The speaker tries to asnwer as many contentions as she can but seemingly the court is left unimpressed by her rebuttals.
\n8:46 PM<\/strong><\/span> The panel asks the speaker to restrictively focus on violations pertaining to section 3 of the aforementioned case. The speaker pleads for putting forth arguments to justify her stance on establishing the relevance to section 4, but the panel regards it worthless. The speaker obliges with the panel.
\n8:50 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The court clerk interrupts to notify that the team has breached the allotted time by 10 minutes at this point. However, with the permission of the panel, the speaker swiftly wraps up with the prayer.<\/p>\n

8:52 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk declares the conclusion of the quarterfinal round. The judges opt to provide written feedback. The court is adjourned with a vote of thanks by the court clerk.<\/p>\n

DAY 3<\/h2>\n

Semi-Final Rounds<\/h3>\n

Court Room 1 (TC 27 v. TC 30)<\/h4>\n

10:30 AM<\/strong><\/span> The Court Clerk makes sure that all the participants are present in the meet. However, Speaker 01 of Team 27 faces network issues and is, therefore, not in the meet.
\n10:33 AM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 01 of Team 27 is still awaited.
\n10:36 AM<\/strong> <\/span>The nervous excitement in the room grows as the participants get a couple of extra minutes to prepare their speech.<\/p>\n

10:38 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 01 joins the meet.
\n10:38 AM<\/strong> <\/span>The court clerk introduces himself and the honourable judges. He welcomes the participants and briefs them on the rules and guidelines.
\n10:40 AM<\/strong> <\/span>The round commences with Speaker 01 from Team 27 taking the stage. She introduces herself, lays down the structure which would be followed by her and then moves on to the facts of the case.
\n10:47 AM<\/strong> <\/span>The bench interrupts the counsel and asks her for a clarification regarding the circumvention of the jurisdiction of CCI.
\n10:48 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel answers the query raised by the bench seemingly satisfactorily.
\n10:49 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel moves forward with stating her contentions. She makes use of case laws that she claims to substantiate her stance. She goes on to prove how the cited case laws are relevant for the case in hand.
\n10:52 AM<\/strong><\/span> The bench seeks clarification regarding a case law cited by her. The bench was not satisfied with her first response and she is posed with a follow-up question. She tries answering the same however, the bench started delving into the details of her argument.
\n10:55 AM<\/strong><\/span> One of the judges faces an audio issue while he tries to put forth a question. Other judges on the bench try communicating his question. However, after this hassle, the earlier confidence and conciseness of the counsel seems to fade away.
\n10:58 AM<\/strong> <\/span>The series of questions continue and the counsel seems to be confused by her own speech. She seeks permission from the bench to move forward with her submissions. She is allowed to do so.
\n11:01 AM<\/strong><\/span> Due to paucity of time she asks for an extension in her time. She is graciously allowed the same.
\n11:03 AM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk informs the counsel that the extra time given to her has elapsed. She takes around 30 extra seconds to sum up her arguments and then concludes her speech.<\/p>\n

11:04 AM<\/strong><\/span> The bench asks her a clarification regarding a statutory provision stated by the counsel in her submissions and asks the counsel to elaborate upon how in the given case principle of natural justice is being violated.
\n11:07 AM<\/strong> <\/span>The bench further asks the counsel to elaborate upon how regulation 46 (A) which was earlier stated by her in her submission, is relevant to the case. She answers the same satisfactorily and concludes her speech.
\n11:08 AM<\/strong> <\/span>The second speaker from Team 27 commences his speech.
\n11:10 AM<\/strong><\/span> The co-counsel makes use of miscellaneous case laws to strengthen his case.
\n11:12 AM<\/strong> <\/span>He brings to the notice of the bench the violation of various statutory provisions and the inconsistencies in the case.
\n11:12 AM<\/strong><\/span> He is interrupted by the bench when they point out a flaw in his argument. He apologises for the confusion and tries to defend his stance. The bench does not seem satisfied with the rationale and arguments given by him.
\n11:18 AM<\/strong><\/span> The bench asks the counsel to justify a technical flaw that can negate the merits of the entire proceedings.
\n11:20 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel answers the query raised by the bench using precedents to substantiate his case.
\n11:21 AM<\/strong><\/span> The series of cross-questioning continues and the speaker seems a little fazed by this.
\n11:23 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel asks the bench for permission to move forward with his submissions. He is allowed to do the same.
\n11:26 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel pauses for a few seconds as he senses some background noise. He is asked by the panel to continue with his arguments.
\n11:27 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is yet again sought clarification regarding the facts and his arguments relating to the case at hand. He tries his best to sail through them.
\n11:30 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel requests an extra minute to answer the bench’s query and present his prayers. He is graciously granted the same.
\n11:31 AM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel yet again requests an extra minute which he is again granted graciously by the bench.
\n11:34 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel presents his prayers, answers one last question posed by the bench and concludes his speech.<\/p>\n

11:35 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 01 from Team 30 takes the stage and requests the bench for a minute to gather his thoughts.
\n11:36 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel commences his speech and lays the particulars of the issues which will be dealt by him.
\n11:37 AM<\/strong><\/span> He starts his speech by pointing out the contradictions in the respondant’s speech.
\n11:38 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel moves on to point out substantial facts of the case which he believes to strengthen his case.
\n11:40 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel cites case laws and statutory provisions which he claims are relevant to the case in hand.
\n11:42 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is interrupted by the bench seeking clarification over the ignorance of the counsel on Table 2 in the case before he is able to make his third submission. He apologises for the same.
\n11:43 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is asked by the bench regarding the place where the acquisition took place. His response does not seem to satisfy the bench. He requests the bench to allow him to answer the query raised by them later in his speech and move forward with his submissions for the time being. He is allowed to do the same.
\n11:50 AM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel cites case laws that he claims are relevant to the case in hand.
\n11:53 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is posed by the bench with a question on “whether the requirement of a notification can be based on a judgement alone”. The counsel is taken aback by this question and asks the bench for some time to gather his thoughts and come back to this question later.
\n11:55 AM<\/strong><\/span> The thread of questions and clarifications continue and the counsel tries his best to provide apt reasonings for the same.<\/p>\n

11:58 AM<\/strong><\/span> Due to the paucity of time, the counsel requests for 3 extra minutes. He is graciously granted the same by the bench and he moves on with his last submission. He provides that the queries which remain unanswered by him will be dealt with by his co counsel.
\n12:04 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel concludes his arguments and is met with a few queries by the bench which he answers with the help of certain case laws and statutory provisions while simultaneously making use of the facts of the case in hand.
\n12:08 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 01 concludes his speech.
\n12:08 AM Speaker 02 of Team 30 takes the stage and commences her speech. She seems concise in her speech.
\n12:10 AM<\/strong><\/span> The co-counsel makes use of various statutory provisions and case laws to substantiate her case.
\n12:12 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is posed with a question by the bench as they point a flaw in her line of reasoning. She answers the same using the intent behind the Competition Act to support her stance. However, the bench does not seem satisfied with her response and a series of cross-questioning commences.<\/p>\n

12:18 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel seems fazed by the continuous grilling by the bench. The tension in the room burgeons as one of the judges face audio issues while putting forward their question.
\n12:22 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel regains her composure and confidence as she proceeds to present her arguments after answering the questions raised by the bench.
\n12:26 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel is yet again posed with a question by the bench based on the arguments presented by her. She answers the same with conviction.
\n12:27 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel is informed that she is left with a minute on her clock. The series of questions from the bench continues.
\n12:32 PM <\/span><\/strong>The counsel asks for an extension of 2 minutes to throw light on her third submission. She is graciously granted the same by the bench.<\/p>\n

12:34 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel concludes her arguments and is then posed with a few more questions by the bench. She answers the same by taking the help of various facts of the case.
\n12:40 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Due to paucity of time, the counsel is unable to take up further questions of the bench and cites her prayer.
\n12:41 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The bench puts forth another few questions in front of the counsel. She answers the same satisfactorily.
\n12:44 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel concludes her speech.
\n12:45 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 02 of Team 27 takes the stage to present his rebuttals. He points out certain inconsistencies in the argument of the other team.
\n12:48 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 01 from Team 30 presents his rebuttals within the specified time and then invites his co-counsel to present further rebuttals.
\n12:49 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The co-counsel presents her rebuttals and is then posed with a couple more questions by the bench which she answers confidently.<\/p>\n

12:53 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk announces that the round stands concluded and the judges move on to present their respective feedbacks.<\/p>\n

Court Room 2 (TC 01 v. TC 26)<\/h4>\n

10:37 AM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk welcomes the judges and participants and introduces the panel. She lays out the rules, guidelines and time structure of the rounds. She then declares the semi-final rounds of the moot open.
\n10:39 AM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 1 of Team 01 begins his submissions with a brief repetition of the facts.<\/p>\n

10:41 AM<\/strong><\/span> After a summary of the facts, the counsel is allowed to begin with his submissions on the issues. He begins with the first issue.
\n10:44 AM<\/strong> <\/span>The panel interrupts the counsel and points out an inconsistency in the prayer in the memo which the counsel then claims was a clerical error that would be changed when he cites his prayer before the bench. He seeks permission to move on to the second issue but is posed with a question which he answers. A counter-question follows and his answer seems to have not satisfied the panel. More counter questions follow, the counsel seems fazed by them
\n10:49 AM<\/strong><\/span> The exchange continues. The judge points out inconsistencies in the interpretation of statutory provisions in light of the facts of the proposition. He is allowed a chance to explain himself with the help of the reiteration of the facts.
\n10:53 AM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel does not seem to satisfy the panel with his answers. He seeks permission to move on to the next arguments; the judges allow.
\n10:55 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is posed a question on whether the precedent he cites is appropriate to be cited before the authority in the present moot proposition. He is posed with another question by the panel, to which he pleads ignorance, and then moves on to clarify his pleadings, which seems to satisfy the panel.<\/p>\n

11:00 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is again posed with a question relating to statutory provisions and their interpretations but his answer does not satisfy the panel. Multiple counter questions follow.
\n11:05 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel fails to satisfy the panel and is therefore allowed to move on with his submissions due to the paucity of time.
\n11:06 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel introduces the second speaker who would be submitting other arguments.
\n11:09 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel faces his first question from the bench. His answer is followed by counter questions. The answer is interrupted by the panel asking the counsel to be more concise in his replies.
\n11:18 AM<\/strong><\/span> The judges are relentless in their questions to the counsel. He seems a little flustered, which the judges seem to notice, and ask the counsel to calm down. They reiterate their questions, ask the counsel to take the hints off of the question, and answer them in a calm and concise manner.
\n11:22 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is asked one more question by the panel, which he responds to, which does not seem to satisfy the panel.
\n11:28 AM<\/strong><\/span> The panel’s inquisitiveness is unending. The speaker tries to deliver satisfactory answers.
\n11:30 AM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk reminds the room that the time allotted to the team is over. He has still posed questions by the bench.
\n11:34 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is allowed an extension of 2 more minutes to satisfy the questions of the panel.
\n11:35 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is allowed a further extension of 2 more minutes to put forth his concluding remarks. He is allowed to cite his prayers.<\/p>\n

11:37 AM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 of Team 26 opens with her arguments. She represents the respondents. She is allowed to move to the issues after a brief summary of the facts.
\n11:41 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is posed a question on an inconsistency which she deems a clerical error. The judges allow it.
\n11:45 AM<\/strong><\/span> Questions and counter questions follow, which the counsel seems to answer confidently citing precedent and statute.
\n11:48 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is asked a specific question by the judges, which seems to leave the counsel fumbling, but she tries to fulfil her role nevertheless.
\n11:53 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is made by the judges to read through the bare act, and the judge explains inconsistencies in her arguments. She tries to justify her position, which invites further enquiries
\n11:59 AM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is allowed permission to move on to the second issue.<\/p>\n

12:04 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is asked to state particular parts of a judgement she had cited as the panel believes it is not the appropriate authority. The panel points out the wrong interpretation of the judgement to the counsel.
\n12:09 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is faced with a barrage of questions; she tries to collect her thoughts and give satisfactory answers.
\n12:13 PM<\/strong><\/span> One of the judges clears up a point of law for the panel on one of the questions posed to the counsel. The counsel then faces more questions.
\n12:16 PM<\/strong><\/span> She is allowed 30 seconds to conclude her arguments and also answer the questions of the judges. She then introduces her co-counsel, who moves forward to deal with the other issues.<\/p>\n

12:21 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel faces her first question from the bench. She seems to answer them confidently. She is stopped; however, and asked to provide clarification on a statutory provision.
\n12:26 PM<\/strong><\/span> There are counter questions following her answers. She tries to confidently hold her ground, but the counter questions seem to disconcert her a little.
\n12:30 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judges seem to add on to each other’s questions, and a grilling session ensues.
\n12:35 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel does not seem to fumble while answering the questions. She justifies her position, but there are repeated interjections by the panel on the inconsistencies in her arguments.<\/p>\n

12:40 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judges keep probing further. The panel asks for a precedent that may support her position. She keeps citing overseas jurisprudence and statute.
\n12:46 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk reminds the speaker of her time limit; she is nevertheless allowed to continue with her submissions on the next issue by the panel
\n12:48 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is further grilled on her submissions. She is concise and quick with her responses, but counter questions follow.
\n12:51 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel is allowed to proceed further after the counter questions end. She is interrupted once again soon after.<\/p>\n

12:55 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is asked to conclude her submissions as her time has run out. She is allowed to move on to her prayers.
\n12:57 PM<\/strong><\/span> Both teams are allowed extension by the judges for rebuttals and surrebuttals.<\/p>\n

1:03 PM<\/strong><\/span> The first team, representing the appellants conclude their rebuttals. The second team, representing the respondents begin with theirs.
\n1:06 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The respondent side conclude their rebuttals. The counsel for the appellants point out that the counsel for the respondents brought in new arguments. The panel takes note of the same.
\n1:07 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The round concludes. The panel gives the participants feedback.<\/p>\n

Final Rounds (TC 26 v. TC 30)<\/h3>\n

3:34 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 of Team 26 begins with her speech.
\n3:35 PM<\/strong><\/span> A judge interrupts the counsel to understand the reasoning behind the analogy presented by her.
\n3:36 PM<\/strong><\/span> Another judge chimes in to demand more elaboration on the previously asked question.<\/p>\n

3:37 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker substantiates the arguments given by her with relevant case laws.<\/p>\n

3:38 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel presents her contentions in an extremely structured manner and shows ample clarity in her speech.
\n3:40 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The panel poses a question asking how the appellant side reached at a particular conclusion in their argument.
\n3:41 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker confidently defends the statements made by her but is met with more questions from the honourable bench.
\n3:42 PM<\/strong> <\/span>“Is it a question of law or a question of fact?”, a judge asks with a knowing smile on his face.
\n3:42 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker moves on to her next submission.
\n3:43 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker resorts to backing her assertions with existing sections and case laws to solidify the case she makes.<\/p>\n

3:45 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel finds herself interrupted by the judges again, being asked to “advance her proposition” in a more convincing manner.
\n3:47 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker uses extensive body language while speaking, answers the bench’s question in an orderly fashion.
\n3:48 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The judges continue to point out flaws in her arguments and demand elaborations.
\n3:50 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The bench interjects to correct the speaker on a case mentioned by her.
\n3:51 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker faces questions back-to-back, but she maintains her composure and answers.
\n3:52 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The bench shares a light moment, chuckling at an observation made by another judge.<\/p>\n

3:53 PM<\/strong><\/span> The final round comes with an extensive amount of cross-questions and an inversely proportionate amount of speaking time.
\n3:54 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker asks the panel to refer to the moot proposition to explain her reasoning, however, the judge is very obviously not in agreement.
\n3:56 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker finds herself cut off mid-sentence more than a few times.
\n3:56 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The judge points out that the counsel’s time is up and that she should wrap up. The honourable judge still poses a question, finds an unsatisfactory answer, and asks her to proceed with her presentation.
\n3:58 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker does not look shaken and completes her submission of the second issue.
\n3:59 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel thanks the bench and invites her co-counsel on the stage.
\n3:59 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 2 of Team 26 begins her submission of issue 3.
\n4:00 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker weaves her argument around the facts of the case and provides strong contentions to the panel.
\n4:02 PM<\/strong> <\/span>A number of cases are cited by the speaker in her speech to strengthen her case.
\n4:02 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker is interrupted by a judge to seek clarification on her interpretation of illegality in “inquiry” and “investigation”.
\n4:03 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The panel again interrupts the counsel to explain to her a certain intricacy in the concept of “evidence”.
\n4:05 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel takes into consideration the lordship’s elaboration on the point and continues to explain the perspective of the appellant side.<\/p>\n

4:05 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel while providing submissions on her next argument, finds herself being asked to stop and elaborate more.
\n4:08 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker does not break under the rigorous examination by the panel and stands her ground.
\n4:10 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker seems well-researched, she has at least one case law up her sleeve to explain every argument.
\n4:11 PM<\/strong> <\/span>After this brief uninterrupted speaking of a full two minutes, a judge asks the counsel a two-fold question.
\n4:13 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The powerful answers coming from the speaker are met with even more powerful counter questions by the honourable bench.<\/p>\n

4:14 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judges seem to now follow a pattern of asking subsidiary questions to the questions previously asked by one of the judges before allowing the counsel to answer.
\n4:15 PM<\/strong> <\/span>“If you are satisfied, move on to the next issue. Don’t expect our satisfaction.” The judges are not as tightly wound as we may think of them.
\n4:16 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel goes on to present the next issue.
\n4:18 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker gets to speak for a full two minutes again and not more, as she finds another question posed to her now.
\n4:19 PM <\/strong><\/span>The counsel answers convincingly and moves on to the next contention.
\n4:20 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Principles that are relevant to the case at hand are beautifully explained by this speaker.
\n4:22 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker seems to have found a flaw in a question asked by a judge, and the judge appears to have conceded.
\n4:23 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The panel interrupts to ask about the speaking time left of the allotted time to the speaker. Turns out she has an ample amount of time left, and thus, she proceeds with her speech.
\n4:25 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker tries to convince the tribunal that the facts of the case lay in the favour of the appellate side.
\n4:26 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Another question is put forth to the speaker before she could move on to the prayer.
\n4:27 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel presents her answer and is allowed to state the prayer.<\/p>\n

4:28 PM<\/strong><\/span> She thanks the court and finds a judge saying “very good”. The future looks bright for the appellant side.
\n4:29 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Speaker 1 of Team 30 begins his speech from the respondent side.
\n4:30 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker is allowed to present the foundational facts of the case and seeks permission to move to issue 1.
\n4:30 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The counsel wants to point out some flaws in the appellant side’s argument but is stopped by the panel since this particular action has the rebuttal time reserved for it.
\n4:32 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker is allowed to present his arguments without any interruption.
\n4:34 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The interruption could not be kept at bay for long. The speaker is posed with a question, and he answers that the approach of the respondent side differs from what was mentioned.
\n4:37 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel seeks permission to conclude this argument. The judge says that he need not have the permission of the panel for each and everything.
\n4:38 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The next issue is picked up by the counsel.
\n4:40 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker quotes and explains certain clauses to substantiate his contentions.
\n4:41 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker relates the case at hand to a case law based on bananas.
\n4:43 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The speaker analyses all the provisions that are of importance here in a structured and foolproof manner.
\n4:44 PM<\/strong> <\/span>It is unusual that the speaker is not being asked any questions.<\/p>\n

4:46 PM<\/strong><\/span> The unusualness ends as a judge asks whether “consumer” should be plural or singular. The answers of the speaker are not immune to the judge’s apparent suspicions.
\n4:48 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker’s answers are not immune to any<\/em> of the judges’ suspicions, as almost every member on the bench seeks a clarification.
\n4:51 PM<\/strong><\/span> Somehow, the speaker looks less confident at the moment. The cross-questions never stop coming.
\n4:52 PM<\/strong><\/span> The lack of confidence of the speaker is now evident as he seems flustered with the question asked by the bench.
\n4:54 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker seeks additional time from the bench to sum up his arguments, but is denied the same and asked to utilize his surrebuttal time.
\n4:56 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker’s attempt to “reasonably conclude” his assertions takes up more than a reasonable amount of time.
\n4:57 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 thanks the bench and concludes his speech.
\n4:57 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 of Team 30 takes the floor.<\/p>\n

4:58 PM<\/strong><\/span> Within the first minute, the counsel is presented with questions from two of the members of the panel.
\n4:59 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel answers these questions by way of presenting her first argument.
\n5:00 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel rebutts a few arguments brought up by the opposing counsel.
\n5:01 PM<\/strong><\/span> This speaker, like the appellant side’s second speaker, also brings forth a plethora of case laws to solidify her position.
\n5:02 PM<\/strong> <\/span>With another question to deflect and even more cross-questions to deal with, a good amount of the speaker’s allotted time is eaten up.
\n5:03 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker answers the questions and seeks permission to move to the next argument. Not surprisingly, she is denied that and finds more questions in her hand.
\n5:05 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker stutters, but her arguments come through.
\n5:06 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker is asked to explain procedures, elaborate on her reasoning, to cite provisions and so much more.
\n5:08 PM<\/strong><\/span> The relentless line of questioning by the panel does not seem to be ceasing anytime soon.<\/p>\n

5:09 PM<\/strong><\/span> There are more questions than answers in this round, it explains that this is the very last one in the competition.
\n5:10 PM<\/strong><\/span> This saga of back and forth between the speaker and the honourable judge goes for an arduously long time.
\n5:13 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker is allowed to proceed to her next submission.
\n5:14 PM<\/strong><\/span> A judge interrupts the counsel and tells her that her interpretation of the Act is wrong, and thus, the argument made by her stands entirely invalid.
\n5:16 PM<\/strong> <\/span>The judges collectively put forth several doubts with regards to this submission.
\n5:17 PM<\/strong><\/span> The members of the panel appear to be smiling after listening to the counsel’s answer. It does not look positive.
\n5:19 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel asks for a 5-minute extension to present her third argument. The court looks for the court clerk to answer, and then to the senior-most member of the panel to grant the same. The honourable judge graciously allows.<\/p>\n

5:20 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel submits her last argument, but it is abruptly stopped by the panel as the court clerk points out the elapsed time. She is still given an extension of another minute to wrap up.
\n5:22 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel completes her argument and wishes to read the prayer. However, another question is posed to the speaker before she could proceed with the same.
\n5:23 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker engages with the question. The judges on a light note state, “We can’t say we are satisfied, we reserve our comments.”
\n5:25 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 of Team 26 confidently starts her speech to present the appellant side’s rebuttals.
\n5:26 PM<\/strong><\/span> The appellant side seems to be facing a connectivity issue.<\/p>\n

5:27 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker continues with her speech. Halfway through the allotted time, the co-counsel takes the wheel.
\n5:29 PM<\/strong> <\/span>Rebuttals from both the speakers are delivered powerfully and in a concise manner, probably owing to the meagre amount of time reserved for rebuttals.
\n5:31 PM<\/strong><\/span> Technical issues plague the speaker, but she continues.
\n5:31 PM<\/strong><\/span> The counsel is cut off mid-sentence as the time appears to have elapsed.
\n5:32 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 1 of Team 30 delivers the surrebuttals.
\n5:33 PM<\/strong><\/span> Speaker 2 takes over now.
\n5:35 PM<\/strong><\/span> The speaker shows that the clauses and sections in existence do not support the arguments made by the opposing counsel.<\/p>\n

5:35 PM<\/strong><\/span> Three judges of the panel collectively question the arguments of the speaker.
\n5:37 PM<\/strong><\/span> The judge interrupts to point out the elapsed time and asks the speaker to stop.
\n5:37 PM<\/strong><\/span> The court clerk thanks all the participants.
\n5:38 PM<\/strong><\/span> This, hereby, marks the conclusion of the final round of this competition.<\/p>\n

Valedictory Ceremony<\/h2>\n

6:00 PM<\/strong><\/span> As the final round of the competition comes to an end, the valedictory ceremony begins.
\n6:03 PM<\/strong><\/span> Prof. (Dr.) Yogendra Kumar Srivastava begins by extending a warm welcome to all the distinguished guests and panellists present in the ceremony. He also congratulates the organising committee of the competition, the faculty and the students involved.
\n6:05 PM<\/strong><\/span> Dr Anindhya Tiwari presents an overarching report of HNMCC over the years, and specifically of the ’22 edition. He also thanks everyone involved in the organisation of the event, with special gratitude for AZB & Partners.
\n6:10 PM<\/strong><\/span> Prof. (Dr.) V.C. Vivekanandan, the Vice-Chancellor of the University, begins his speech by acknowledging and welcoming the guests of the evening. He then speaks about the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and the important role played by the institution. “Indian Competition Commission compared to many jurisdictions, coming little later, has done a tremendous job so far and we do hope that this will continue further”, remarks the Vice-Chancellor commending the work done by the CCI. While stressing on the practical benefits of the moot, he remarks “this theme, the moot court and the various students who participated, is a practical way of understanding this law much more than can be taught in the classroom.” He ends his speech with a note of thanks.
\n6:18 PM<\/strong><\/span> Guest of Honour, Shri R. Venkataraman, Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, is welcomed to share his words of wisdom with the attendees. He speaks about the need to maintain a balance between innovation, creativity and equality, so as to not compromise either of them at the cost of another. He elaborates on the subject of intellectual property protection and reinforces its importance in society. He stresses the importance of exploring new opportunities and unseen ways for professionals.
\n6:25 PM<\/strong><\/span> Shri Mohan Govil, IRS, (Adviser & Head of the Combination Division, CCI), who was also one of the final judges of the event, is welcomed to the panel. He highlights the importance of the antitrust and competition laws, with respect to the principle of justice. He commends the participants for their well-researched arguments put up in the moot court competition and acknowledges how participating in events like this hones one’s litigation skills. He talks about certain intricacies of the proposition. He ends by congratulating the participants, even inviting them to intern at the CCI.
\n6:35 PM<\/strong><\/span> Guest of Honour, Prof. (Dr.) David Ambrose is invited to the dais. He begins by applauding the Hon’ble Chancellor and Prof. V.C. Vivekanandan for having brought evident positive changes in HNLU. As one of the final judges of the competition, he elaborates on the importance of mooting in law school, and the significance of corporate good governance as an interdisciplinary field of law. He expresses his satisfaction with the performance of the participants, however, advises them to research more deeply to improve their advocacy. He concludes by congratulating the participants and noting the triviality of winning or losing in an event such as this.
\n6:47 PM<\/strong><\/span> Dr Lalit Bhasin, Managing Director of Bhasin & Co., takes up the dais greeting his esteemed panellists and pointing out the significance of the event marked by the very presence of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh High Court in the ceremony. He begins by highlighting the colonial influence in the Indian judicial system, and the spirit of collaboration to achieve justice. He emphasises the need for the “art of persuasion and negotiation” which he encourages law schools to focus on, given what he deems to be the failing structure of litigation in India. “Dispute solutions and not dispute resolutions”, he says, is the future of the country. He urges the young lawyers to focus on their “professional social responsibility” over corporate social responsibility in their legal careers.
\n6:56 PM<\/strong><\/span> Ms Zia Mody, Founding Partner in AZB & Partners, is invited to the panel for her much-awaited address in the ceremony. She begins on a personal note, reminiscing her memory of Justice Hidayatullah. She congratulates the organising committee of HNMCC for having undertaken the organisation of this competition, especially during the pandemic. “Moot courts lay the foundation of giving you the DNA of how you have to be as counsel when you want to go into that career”, she says, noting how it teaches one to “dance and prance, to think on your feet, to move onto the next point if the judges are not liking what they are hearing, to go into the point because the judge is always right if they like something, and to keep your mouth shut if the court is with you”. She also focuses on a lawyer’s art of persuasion, and how moot court competitions train one in it. Ms Mody recognises the presence of the CCI through the attendance of Mr Govil and commends them for being vested in the growth of good advocacy. She says both CCI and AZB & Partners are waiting to welcome the participants of the event for internships. She thanks her partner, Mr Bharat Budholia, for helping her with the moot problem, and ends by congratulating all members involved in the event.
\n7:01 PM<\/strong><\/span> After an impressive introduction of his legal achievements, Hon’ble Justice Arup Kumar Goswami is invited by the host to part wisdom. After greeting the panellists and the guests of the evening, he expresses his elation to be a part of the 12th edition of HNMCC. He moves forward to express the acclamations of Justice Hidayatullah stressing his active involvement in various landmark judgements. Further, he talks about the indispensable role played by the moot competition, elaborating on the various values such competitions inculcate in future lawyers. After a persuasive speech on the importance of moot court competitions in law school, he talks about the subject of competition law and the role played by the CCI in regulating the market. He acknowledges the number of teams that participated in the competition and applauds such an impressive turnout. In the end, he wishes the participants all the best and requests the organisers to announce the results.
\n7:10 PM<\/strong><\/span> As the suspense builds up, Hon’ble Justice Arup Kumar Goswami is invited to declare the results.
\n7:12 PM<\/strong><\/span> Ms Drishti Jain of Symbiosis Law School, Pune wins the Best Researcher award; Ms Lavanya Ambalkar of Symbiosis Law School, Pune wins the Best Speaker award; University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU, New Delhi wins the award for the Best Memorial.
\n7:13 PM<\/strong><\/span> While Ramaiah College of Law bags the Runner Up position; National Law University, Jodhpur is declared as the Winner of the 12th edition of HNMCC.<\/p>\n

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

The CCI – HNMCC 2022 is inspired by the ideals of late Hon\u2019ble Justice Mr M. Hidayatullah, who firmly believed in the <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":154,"featured_media":262017,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[31667,48660],"class_list":["post-261937","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-liveblogging","tag-hnlu","tag-hnmcc"],"yoast_head":"\nLive | XII Competition Commission of India - Hidayatullah Memorial National Moot Court Competition 2022 | 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\/2022\/02\/18\/live-xii-competition-commission-of-india-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2022\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Live | XII Competition Commission of India - Hidayatullah Memorial National Moot Court Competition 2022\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The CCI – HNMCC 2022 is inspired by the ideals of late Hon\u2019ble Justice Mr M. Hidayatullah, who firmly believed in the\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/18\/live-xii-competition-commission-of-india-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2022\/\" \/>\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=\"2022-02-18T12:34:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-02-20T14:23:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/IMG-20220218-WA0003.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1280\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"720\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Student Ambassador\" \/>\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 Ambassador\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"163 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\/2022\/02\/18\/live-xii-competition-commission-of-india-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2022\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/18\/live-xii-competition-commission-of-india-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2022\/\",\"name\":\"Live | XII Competition Commission of India - Hidayatullah Memorial National Moot Court Competition 2022 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/18\/live-xii-competition-commission-of-india-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2022\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/18\/live-xii-competition-commission-of-india-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2022\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/IMG-20220218-WA0003.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-02-18T12:34:07+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-02-20T14:23:45+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aae310506e2286990c33182c328fbca5\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/18\/live-xii-competition-commission-of-india-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2022\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/18\/live-xii-competition-commission-of-india-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2022\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/18\/live-xii-competition-commission-of-india-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2022\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/IMG-20220218-WA0003.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/IMG-20220218-WA0003.jpg\",\"width\":1280,\"height\":720},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/18\/live-xii-competition-commission-of-india-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2022\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Live | XII Competition Commission of India – Hidayatullah Memorial National Moot Court Competition 2022\"}]},{\"@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\/aae310506e2286990c33182c328fbca5\",\"name\":\"Student Ambassador\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7596e644a64d9d93b3c4b391d4608a4607a547fbfefeafa031c9cb4fd53d7f16?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7596e644a64d9d93b3c4b391d4608a4607a547fbfefeafa031c9cb4fd53d7f16?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Student Ambassador\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/student_reporter1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Live | XII Competition Commission of India - Hidayatullah Memorial National Moot Court Competition 2022 | 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\/2022\/02\/18\/live-xii-competition-commission-of-india-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2022\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Live | XII Competition Commission of India - Hidayatullah Memorial National Moot Court Competition 2022","og_description":"The CCI – HNMCC 2022 is inspired by the ideals of late Hon\u2019ble Justice Mr M. Hidayatullah, who firmly believed in the","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/18\/live-xii-competition-commission-of-india-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2022\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2022-02-18T12:34:07+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-02-20T14:23:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1280,"height":720,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/IMG-20220218-WA0003.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Student Ambassador","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Student Ambassador","Est. reading time":"163 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/18\/live-xii-competition-commission-of-india-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2022\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/18\/live-xii-competition-commission-of-india-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2022\/","name":"Live | XII Competition Commission of India - Hidayatullah Memorial National Moot Court Competition 2022 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/18\/live-xii-competition-commission-of-india-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2022\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/18\/live-xii-competition-commission-of-india-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2022\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/IMG-20220218-WA0003.jpg","datePublished":"2022-02-18T12:34:07+00:00","dateModified":"2022-02-20T14:23:45+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aae310506e2286990c33182c328fbca5"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/18\/live-xii-competition-commission-of-india-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2022\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/18\/live-xii-competition-commission-of-india-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2022\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/18\/live-xii-competition-commission-of-india-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2022\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/IMG-20220218-WA0003.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/IMG-20220218-WA0003.jpg","width":1280,"height":720},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/18\/live-xii-competition-commission-of-india-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2022\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Live | XII Competition Commission of India – Hidayatullah Memorial National Moot Court Competition 2022"}]},{"@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\/aae310506e2286990c33182c328fbca5","name":"Student Ambassador","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7596e644a64d9d93b3c4b391d4608a4607a547fbfefeafa031c9cb4fd53d7f16?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7596e644a64d9d93b3c4b391d4608a4607a547fbfefeafa031c9cb4fd53d7f16?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Student Ambassador"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/student_reporter1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/IMG-20220218-WA0003.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":219470,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/13\/11th-justice-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2019\/","url_meta":{"origin":261937,"position":0},"title":"11th Justice Hidayatullah Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2019","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 13, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Reported by Sharon David","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\/2019\/09\/CCI-HNMCC-Important-Dates-2019-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/CCI-HNMCC-Important-Dates-2019-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/CCI-HNMCC-Important-Dates-2019-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/CCI-HNMCC-Important-Dates-2019-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/CCI-HNMCC-Important-Dates-2019-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/CCI-HNMCC-Important-Dates-2019-1.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":258547,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/15\/hnlu-cci-hnlu-12th-justice-hidayatullah-national-moot-court-competition-2022\/","url_meta":{"origin":261937,"position":1},"title":"HNLU | CCI-HNLU 12th Justice Hidayatullah National Moot Court Competition 2022","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 15, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Reported by Radhika Ghosh","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\/2021\/12\/CCI-HNLU.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/CCI-HNLU.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/CCI-HNLU.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/CCI-HNLU.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/CCI-HNLU.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":282530,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/27\/hnlu-cci-hnlu-13th-justice-hidayatullah-national-moot-court-competition-2023\/","url_meta":{"origin":261937,"position":2},"title":"HNLU | CCI-HNLU 13th Justice Hidayatullah National Moot Court Competition 2023","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 27, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"1. About Hidayatullah National Law University Established in 2003, Hidayatullah National Law University will be completing a journey of two decades in the year 2023. In such a short span of time, HNLU has carved out a niche for itself in the realm of legal education across India. Named after\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Law School News"","block_context":{"text":"Law School News","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/lawschoolnews\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"HNLU | CCI-HNLU 13th Justice Hidayatullah National Moot Court Competition 2023","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image147.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":181414,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/01\/15\/hnlu-announces-10th-justice-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2018\/","url_meta":{"origin":261937,"position":3},"title":"HNLU announces 10th Justice Hidayatullah Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2018","author":"Saba","date":"January 15, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Reported by Ankitesh Ojha","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\/2016\/10\/HNLU-RAIPUR_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/HNLU-RAIPUR_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/HNLU-RAIPUR_1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/HNLU-RAIPUR_1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/HNLU-RAIPUR_1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":116661,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/03\/29\/wb-national-university-of-juridical-sciences-wins-9th-justice-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition\/","url_meta":{"origin":261937,"position":4},"title":"WB National University of Juridical Sciences wins 9th Justice Hidayatullah Memorial National Moot Court Competition","author":"Saba","date":"March 29, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Reported by Ankitesh Ojha","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\/2017\/03\/HNLU-Winning-team.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/HNLU-Winning-team.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/HNLU-Winning-team.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/HNLU-Winning-team.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/HNLU-Winning-team.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":99671,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/17\/hnlu-raipur-announces-9th-justice-hidayatullah-memorial-national-moot-court-competition-2017\/","url_meta":{"origin":261937,"position":5},"title":"HNLU, Raipur announces 9th Justice Hidayatullah Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2017","author":"Saba","date":"January 17, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Reported by Ankitesh Ojha","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\/2016\/10\/HNLU-RAIPUR_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/HNLU-RAIPUR_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/HNLU-RAIPUR_1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/HNLU-RAIPUR_1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/HNLU-RAIPUR_1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261937","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\/154"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=261937"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261937\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/262017"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=261937"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=261937"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=261937"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}