This year\u2019s Moot problem has been drafted by Mr. Jawad A. J.<\/strong> and Advocate Tariq Khan<\/strong>. Mr. Jawad A.J. is working as a Global Faculty for ADR ODR International, UK and is an accredited Digital Dispute Resolution Specialist with DDRS. Advocate Tariq Khan is the Registrar of the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (IAMC), Hyderabad. The Moot Court Competition has come to fruition through the untiring support and dedication of the University\u2019s Moot Court Committee (MCC) <\/strong>headed by Joint Convenors, Kashish Jain <\/strong>and Shravani Nag Lanka <\/strong>of the Batch of 2023.<\/strong><\/p>\n 12:00 PM:<\/strong> The registrations for the inaugural edition of the flagship arbitration moot, i.e., RMLNLU \u2013 Kochhar & Co. Arbitration Moot Court Competition, 2023 <\/strong>have begun. With great enthusiasm, all the teams submitted their compendiums and memorials and procured their goodie bags to mark the start of the event.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 2:00 PM: <\/strong>After a hectic registration process the teams are now looking forward to enjoying scrumptious meals.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 3:30 PM:<\/strong> The inaugural ceremony of the Competition was graced by the benign presence of Dr. A.P. Singh<\/strong>, the Head of Department of Legal Studies of the University, Dr. Visalakshi Vegesna<\/strong>, the Chairperson of the Moot Court Committee and Dr. Prasenjit Kundu<\/strong>, the Faculty Coordinator of the Moot Court Committee.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 3:45 PM:<\/strong>\u202fThe Chairperson<\/strong> of the Moot Court Committee addressed the gathering, boosting the morale of all the participants. She talked about the importance of Moot Court Competitions in not only developing legal acumen but also being an important knowledge asset for law students. She thanked all the participants, sponsors, faculty members and declared the competition open.<\/p>\n 4:00 PM: Mr. Rajesh Raina<\/strong>, Deputy Manager Training, Eastern Book Company addressed the gathering and held an interactive session about how to access and use the SCC Online database<\/strong>. He also discussed the nuances of mooting, and its importance in law schools.<\/p>\n 5:00 PM:\u202f<\/strong>The participants were briefed and after a short while the Match-ups were released post which Memorials were exchanged.\u202fThe palpability in the room was conspicuous, the participants left the room with the mounting nervousness of presenting a case at court tomorrow.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Judges Briefing<\/strong><\/p>\n 10:00 AM:<\/b> The judges inclusive of experienced senior advocates, partners and associates at reputed law firms, joined the meeting to be briefed on the moot proposition, marking scheme and other technical details. <\/span>Mr. Jawad A.J<\/b>, the problem drafter delivered an insightful speech explaining the issues centered around the Moot Proposition.<\/span><\/p>\n 10:30 AM:<\/b> A question and answer session was taken by the problem drafter addressing the issues related to the Moot Proposition.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Court Room 1: NLU Odisha<\/b> was up against <\/span>USLLS<\/b>. The counsels were thoroughly questioned by the judges to extract the most coherent arguments. The participants put up a brave face as they answered the questions to the best of their ability in order to put forth their most convincing arguments. The judge focused on various peculiarities of the proposition that prompted the participants to come up with several interesting arguments.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room 2:<\/b> Symbiosis Law college Pune<\/b> was up against <\/span>SLS Hyderabad<\/b>. The participants presented articulate arguments that convinced the judges as to their assertions, backed by the proper authority of law. The judges engaged in questioning regarding authorities and backing of international laws, which was dealt with confidence by the counsels. The judges also engaged in procedural questioning. The judges focused on various peculiarities of arbitration law and principles that prompted the participants to come up with several interesting arguments. The round came to an end with engaging rebuttals.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room 5:<\/b> NLU Jodhpur <\/b>had a challenging round against<\/span> IILM University<\/b>. The participants presented their arguments in a well structured manner. The judges grilled the counsels in order to extract the most cogent arguments. The judges primarily focused on the legal backing of the arguments with relevant case laws and precedents. The participants answered the questions articulately. Both counsels were asked to submit their prayers following their arguments. The participants gained invaluable experience in the art of answering the queries of the judges with precision and brevity.<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room 8: HPNLU Shimla<\/b> was up against<\/span> NLU Delhi.<\/b> The participants presented articulate arguments in an attempt to solidify their contention. The participants were questioned by the judges in great detail. The participants gave well thought out answers that convinced the judges as to their assertions, backed by the proper authority of law. Both the teams were equally matched in research and it all came down to the skills of oral presentation.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room 10:<\/b>\u00a0<\/span>Christ Bangalore<\/b> was up against<\/span> CNLU Patna<\/b>. The participants presented articulate arguments, backed by the proper authority of law. The judges engaged in some grilling questioning, which were answered by the participants to the best of their ability and the judges were thus, thoroughly impressed. Both the teams engaged in prompt rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side. They equally matched in research and it all came down to the skills of oral presentation. After an intriguing set of arguments by all of the teams, we have now arrived at the end of the first session of the Prelims.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room 3: MNLU Mumbai<\/b> faced off against <\/span>NLU Odisha<\/b> in a competitive round. The judges engaged in constant questioning, which was dealt with confidence by the counsels.<\/span> The counsels did their utmost to persuade the judges that their arguments were legally sound, otherwise they would have been reduced to mere conjecture.\u00a0<\/span> It was a battle between two premier law schools both equally placed in their research which ultimately came down to who could present their set of arguments in a more cogent and coherent manner.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room 4:<\/b> UPES<\/b> were up against <\/span>DBRANLU Jabalpur<\/b>. Before proceeding to the arguments, the judges asked the petitioners to summarize the facts of the case. The teams were well researched and presented convincing arguments to support the case on their respective sides. The judges questioned the participants on the intricacies of the law, and international principles centered around the case at hand. After both the sides presented their arguments, they proceeded to the rebuttals.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room 6: NLU Assam<\/b> faced <\/span>NALSAR<\/b>, in what was a tough battle. Both the teams presented a set of cogent and impressive arguments before the judges. Multiple questions were shot at them but the teams showed exceptional confidence and stood their ground. The judges seemed pleased with the ancillary issues presented by the counsels to support their central argument. At the end both the sides engaged in prompt rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side.<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room 7:<\/b> IILM Gurgaon<\/b> squared up against the equally talented team of <\/span>NUALS\u00a0 Kochi<\/b>. The participants presented well drafted arguments indicative of the thorough research carried out by them. The participants seemed well versed with the intricacies of the problem and were questioned by the judges on the particulars of the law and its authoritative backing. The participants answered to the best of their ability and the judges were thus <\/span>highly <\/span>impressed. Following the arguments, the participants presented their rebuttals\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room 9: CNLU Patna <\/b>and <\/span>RGNUL<\/b> faced off<\/span> in a neck-to-neck round. The court room saw the bustle as the counsel on behalf of the petitioners received a round of questions from the Bench, which they answered to the best of their ability. Both the teams were given the time extension and later they were engaged in prompt rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side. The feedback was enriching for both the\u00a0 teams.<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room 1: NUALS Kochi<\/b> was up against <\/span>NLU, Jodhpur<\/b>. The participants presented articulate arguments that convinced the judges as to their assertions, backed by proper authorities of law. The teams had very competitive speakers. Both the teams engaged in prompt rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side. In the end, the judges gave crucial feedback to the teams that would help them improve their understanding of the law.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room 3: RGNUL <\/b>squared up against <\/span>NIRMA University<\/b> in an intense round where the judges grilled the counsels on the intricacies of novation and relevant legal provisions. The judge focused on various peculiarities of law that prompted the participants to come up with several interesting arguments. The participants answered to the best of their ability and the judges were thus thoroughly impressed.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room 4: VIPS and MNLU Mumbai<\/b> faced each in a cutthroat round. Fine set of arguments were presented by the two sides accompanied with answering questions presented by the judges in an attempt to make their respective cases stronger. The counsels presented their arguments with utmost clarity and coherence. The participants were questioned by the judges, and they answered the same with authorities and legal backing. The round came to a successful end after both the teams delivered their rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room 5: NLIU Bhopal <\/b>and<\/span> SLS Pune<\/b> was a close fight between two premier law schools. The participants presented their arguments in an attempt to make their case strong. The participants gave thorough answers to the judges. Following the arguments, the participants presented the Rebuttals. The judges gave an\u00a0 inspiring feedback at the end, and provided insight to the participants on how they can improve.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room 7: HPUILS<\/b> was up against <\/span>BML Munjal University<\/b>. The court room saw an engaging round as the judges were asking numerous questions. The counsels attempted their best to try and satisfy the judges of the legal backing to their arguments. Later, they were engaged in prompt rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side.\u00a0 Both the teams were equally matched in research and it all came down to the skills of oral presentations.<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room 1:<\/strong> <\/span>National Law University, Jodhpur<\/b> was up against<\/span> VIPS, Tech Campus<\/b> in the quarterfinals round being judged by<\/span> Mr. Hari Krishnan, Mr. Neel Kamal Mishra<\/b> and<\/span> Mr. Abhinav Mathur<\/b>, all of whom are very experienced. The judges questioned the parties on the binding value of legal provisions mentioned by the counsel. They posed several tricky questions which were answered by the counsels in a tactful manner and this taught them the much-valued art of thinking on one\u2019s feet.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room No. 2:<\/strong> The room witnessed the round between <\/span>CNLU, Patna<\/b> and <\/span>NLUJA, Assam<\/b>. The bench comprised of<\/span> Mr. Deepesh, Mr. Abhikalp Singh,<\/b> and <\/span>Mr. Ramesh Kumar Maali<\/b>. The participants seemed exceptionally well versed with the facts and principles of law being applied to the case at hand. The nuanced approach applied by the counsels to satisfy the queries of the bench were indicative of the well-researched case being argued in the round. Both the teams were given a time extension and later they were engaged in prompt rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room No. 3 : <\/strong>HNLU, Raipur<\/b> squared up against<\/span> NMIMS Kirti P. Mehta School of Law<\/b>. The round was judged by the learned bench comprising of <\/span>Mr. Samiron Borkataky, Mr. Tushar Behl, <\/b>and <\/span>Ms. Aagam Kaur<\/b>. The round began with the Team from HNLU Raipur presenting its arguments. The counsel was asked to throw some light on the facts of the case. Following which the team was questioned thoroughly with respect to Arbitration Law. The counsel answered the questions with proper legal backing and sound legal principles. The team from <\/span>NMIMS<\/b> showed great zeal in presenting their arguments and dealt with all the questions thrown at them. This round brought out several interesting insights into the characteristics of the problem and their argumentation.\u00a0 Following the rounds the judges gave valuable feedback to the participants in order to help them overcome their shortcomings\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room 4:<\/strong> The room saw <\/span>Nirma Law University<\/b> going up against <\/span>MNLU Mumbai<\/b>.<\/strong> Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Mr. Anant Vijay Maria <\/b>and<\/span> Ms. Gunjan Mangla<\/b> were on the bench that posed a series of questions which put the participants in a position to think and come up with the most convincing arguments. Both sides were confident and articulate in presenting their sides before the judges. The round came to an end with a brief and crisp set of rebuttals and sur-rebuttals. The rounds ended with teams from <\/span>National Law University Jodhpur, Nirma University, NMIMS Kirti P. Mehta School of Law <\/b>and <\/span>CNLU, Patna<\/b> qualifying for the semifinals. They left the gala dinner with excitement and nervousness for the big day tomorrow.<\/span><\/p>\n 12:00 PM: The Semi-Finals\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Court Room No. 1:<\/b> The match-up between <\/span>Nirma Law University<\/b> and <\/span>NMIMS Kirti P. Mehta School of Law<\/b> was an extraordinary display of in-depth legal research and oral argumentation. The round was judged by the learned bench composed of <\/span>Ms. Kavita Sarin<\/b>,<\/span> Ms. Jyoti Dastidar<\/b> and<\/span> Mr. Gantavya Chandra<\/b>. Both the teams were given a time limit of 45 minutes each to present their arguments including rebuttals and sur-rebuttals. The teams were equally matched in their attempt to present strong and clear cases to the judges. The judges had a good grasp of the moot proposition and questioned the counsels thoroughly. They seemed pleased with the ancillary issues presented by the counsels to support their central argument. The round was reflective of the participant\u2019s thoroughness of the law applied. By covering the finer points of the law, all four counsels covered all possibilities and contingencies to the case at hand and hence concluded a hard-fought semi-final round.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Court Room 2: NLU Jodhpur<\/b> versus <\/span>CNLU, Patna<\/b> was a fierce round of arguments and counter-arguments. The bench comprised of <\/span>Mr. Vaibhav Joshi, Dr. Prasenjit Kundu <\/b>and<\/span> Mr. Gauhar Mirza<\/b>. The round began with the team from NLU Jodhpur presenting their arguments. The counsel was asked to summarize the facts of the case before proceeding with the arguments. The judges grilled the participants regarding the facts mentioned in the moot proposition. The team from CNLU, Patna was questioned thoroughly on various aspects of the law that is quite dynamic in nature. The participants answered the questions tactfully and provided the judges with answers they were looking for. <\/span>Mr. Gauhar Mirza<\/b> asked well-structured questions in order to gauge the knowledge of facts. The counsels had to balance time-management with the plethora of issues to be dealt with. Fine speaking skills were put on display by the participants. The teams cited various authorities to back their arguments, to the satisfaction of the bench and as a counter to the contentions of the opposing counsels. It was a closely contested round which came down to the rebuttals in the final minutes of the round. The round was hard fought, adding to the anticipation of the results.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 2:45 PM: <\/b>The much awaited results of the Semi-finals have been declared, the teams making it to the Finals<\/strong> of 1st RMLNLU \u2013 Kochhar & Co. Arbitration Moot Court Competition, 2023 are <\/span>NMIMS Kirti P. Mehta School of Law <\/b>and<\/span> NLU, Jodhpur<\/b>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n \n Petitioner\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Speaker 1<\/strong>: The counsel argued about Section 57<\/strong> of the <\/span>Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/strong> and its interpretation. The next sub-argument was that the current Mediation Act does not have retrospective application. The case of J.S. Yadav v Uttar Pradesh<\/strong> was referred to by the counsel. The remedy of arbitration under a novated contract is not valid according to the counsel. Senior Adv., Addl. Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati ma’am<\/strong> asked various questions to the counsel on fundamentals of the facts and law.\u00a0 The counsel cited several examples regarding the M<\/strong>ediation Act, 2021<\/strong> to substantiate her arguments like Section 58-65<\/strong> of Mediation Act<\/strong> and concluded that the application of the act should be prospective.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Speaker 2<\/strong>: The counsel argued that there was no series of fraud, following which several factual questions were shot in her way but the counsel stuck to her argument. The counsel was further asked about the allegation of fraud. The judges asked the counsel to cite recent judgements to support her case to which the counsel obliged. The counsel pleaded that FMCA<\/strong> falls under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996<\/strong> (there was no mediated settlement agreement) and the intentions of the party were stressed upon. The counsels had challenged the validity of FMCA and agreed to give extra assets to support family values and argued that they do not want a family to fall apart. After a short extension of time, the judges thanked the counsels for their assistance and the submissions were concluded.<\/span><\/p>\n \n Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n Speaker 1<\/strong> : The counsels argued on the invocation and validity of arbitration clause under FMCA and novation<\/strong>. The judges questioned the counsels on their submissions. The counsels stressed on harmonical reading of the FAA and FMCA<\/strong>, harmonious interpretation of the agreements. Questions on dispute resolution, good faith and the finality of this dispute were also asked. Senior Adv., Addl. Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati ma\u2019am<\/strong> asked various intricate questions which were answered by the counsel to the best of their ability.<\/span><\/p>\n Speaker 2<\/strong> : The counsel pleaded on the retrospectivity of the act and that the act is prima facie civil in nature. The judges asked whether there was a declaration in the act about retrospectivity and the difference of proceedings in commencement and otherwise. The counsel had requested for the wider interpretation of the said clause as the substantial rights of the parties are affected. Judges thoroughly questioned the counsel on the facts of the case and on the use of fraud vitiating the consent. The counsel cited various authorities for the case and the arbitrability of the matter. The judges referred to various clauses of the arbitration act and asked questions on the same. Both the counsels gave their rebuttal and sur-rebuttals and concluded their submissions.<\/span><\/p>\nDay 1 \u2013 Registration and The Opening Ceremony<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/regimage-300x169.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/regimage2-300x225.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/regimage3-300x169.jpg\")
<\/p>\nEBC Session<\/h2>\n
Match Ups<\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/regimage4-1-300x225.jpg\")
<\/p>\nDay 2 \u2013 Preliminary Rounds and Quarter Final Rounds\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Round 1 \u2013 11:00 AM \u2013 12:30 PM\u00a0<\/b><\/h2>\n
Preliminary Round 2 \u2013 12:30 PM \u2013 2:00 PM\u00a0<\/b><\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/WhatsApp-Image-2023-03-25-at-2.52.17-PM-300x135.jpeg\")
<\/p>\nPreliminary Round 3 \u2013 4:00 PM \u2013 5:30 PM\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/WhatsApp-Image-2023-03-25-at-3.06.24-PM-300x225.jpeg\")
<\/p>\nThe Quarterfinals : 6:15 PM – 8:00 PM<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Day 3 \u2013 Semi-Finals and Final Rounds\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>\n
4:00 PM to 6:00 PM: The Final Round<\/strong>\u00a0<\/span><\/h2>\n