Live | XIII CCI – HNMCC 2023

The CCI – HNMCC 2023 is inspired by the ideals of late Hon’ble 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’s principles, the CCI – HNMCC 2023 is being conducted to primarily instill critical thinking and ignite law students’ minds to provide them with a starting point in their upcoming law careers.

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 ’23 is ‘Competition Law’, one of the contemporary and relatively unexplored practices in the Indian legal regime. The moot proposition revolves around the growth of an Online Audio-Video Streaming (OAVS) Platform ‘Playflix’, through its acquisition of a Password Protection Service Provider ‘SecPass’, and a collaborative arrangement with ‘CalTel’ a leading player in Telecom Services, which is being decried as anti-competitive practice by other players in the OAVS Industry. The proposition encapsulates some diverse amd complex issues related to validity of acquisitions and anti-competitive practices in relation the OAVS Platforms, and the issues involved portray the intersection of various developing fields of law such as data protection and privacy, unfair and discriminatory market practices.

The Moot Court Society and the Organising Committee invite you to be a part of the 13th edition of HNMCC. Let the competition begin!

DAY 1

Inaugural Ceremony

5:39	Ceremony commences.
17:42	Chief guests entered the audiorium.
17:42	Inaugural address commences, emphasis on winning, the value of competition and competition law.
17:43	Anchor greets all the guests on the stage.
17:44	The guests and the participants are welcomed.
17:45	The guests are invited to light the ceremonial lamp.
17:46	The lightning of the ceremonial lamp marks the commencement of the competition.
17:50	Prof. Anindhya Tiwari, Faculty Convenor for the Moot Court Committee is invited to deliver the welcome address.
17:51	The address emphasises the prestige of the competition, and shares the vision of Hon’ble Justice Hidayatullah.
17:53	Student Convenor Ayush Shukla is invited to address the participants.
17:54	Ayush Shukla delivers a message motivating the participants and conveys his gratitude to the organising committee.
17:55	Honourable Vice Chancellor Sir is invited to present the tokens of appreciation to the esteemed guests.
17:56	Prof. Anindhya Tiwari is invited to present the token of appreciation to Ms. Zia Mody.
17:56	Ms. Zia Mody is presented with a token of appreciation.
17:57	Mr. Bharat Bhudolia is presented with a token of appreciation.

17:58	Prof. (Dr.) V.C. Vivekanandan is presented the token of appreciation by Prof. Yogendra Kumar.
17:58	Prof. Deepak Srivastava presented the token of appreciation to Registrar Prof. Uday Shankar.
18:00	Prof. Anindhya Tiwari is presented with a token of appreciation by Mr. Amitesh Deshmukh.
18:01	Prof. (Dr.) V.C. Vivekanandan is invited to deliver the opening remarks.
18:03	Prof. (Dr.) V.C Vivekanandan sir begins his message with a motivating remarks to the participants
18:06	Sir discusses the nuances that lace the newly introduced amendment bill, and what the future of competition law would look like in India.
18:09	Sir thanks all the honourable guests, and concludes his address.
18:10	Ms. Zia Mody is invited to share her views with the guests and participants.
18:12	Ms. Zia Mody delivers a message paying tribute to Justice Hidayatullah and proceeds to congratulate the 38 participating teams

18:15	Ms. Mody discusses the past, present and future of competition law, and the evolution it demands.
18:16	She announces on behalf of AZB, that the winning team will be offered an internship at AZB.
18:17	Ms. Mody’s address is concluded.
18:18	Chief Guest Justice G. Raghuram is introduced to the gathering and is invited to address the same.
18:19	Justice Raghuram takes the dais and proceeds with his address, beginning on a lighter note. He shared snippets of his heartfelt life experience and connects them with science, laws and challenges.
18:24	Justice Raghuram proceeds to discuss the nuances of the various branches of law, and the need to address the constant cross-currents in the ever-changing technological regime in light of the dynamic legal fields- correlating the new dynamics to the string theory.
18:28	He emphasises the increasing social responsibility of upcoming lawyers while addressing the need of representing the underdogs, focusing equally on pro bono work.
18:30	Justice Raghuram concludes with his referal to the moot problem and wishes the participants, luck.

18:31	Justice Raghuram is presented with a memento by Prof. (Dr.) V.C. Vivekanandan.
18:32	Ms. Zia Mody is presented with a momento by Prof. (DR.) Uday Shankar.
18:33	Prof. (Dr.) Uday Shankar delivers the vote of thanks, expressing his gratitude towards all the esteemed guests, the participants, and Prof. (Dr.) V.C. Vivekanandan. He furthers his address by thanking the faculty organising committee as well as the student organising committee, and each and every one involved. Last, but certainly not the least, he proceeds to thank the esteemed judges.
18:35	He concludes his vote by including the supporting sections, the Judges, and everyone else for joining this event and making it possible.

Preliminary Round 1

Court Room 1

10:38 AM	The air inside the courtroom is thick with anticipation as a sea of anxious participants wait with bated breath for the judges to make their entrance. Every participant appears to be in a state of nervous excitement, their hearts beating rapidly as they contemplate what lies ahead.
10:51 AM	The courtroom buzzes as the judges arrive, and the participants can be seen rustling through their papers.
10:54 AM	The judges declare that the court is in session. Speaker 1 of the informant side steps forward, and begins to passionately argue her case.
10:58 AM	The counsel gives the structure of her submissions and the judges listen attentively and keep scribbling notes on their pads.
11:01 AM	The hon’ble bench starts questioning the counsel and begins to probe her with questions to test the depth of her knowledge and seeks clarification on the argument of the speaker. The court master brings up the time alert notice.
11:05 AM	The counsel welcomes the questioning from the bench and the entire discourse delves into the intricacies of Section 5 of the Competition Act. While the bench shifts the questioning to the Mergers, the court master again brings up the time alert.
11:08 AM	Undeterred by the judges’ questioning, the counsel continues with her submissions and eloquently responds to each of the judges’ queries. The counsel proceeds to cite persuasive case laws in order to make the ground in her favour.
11:11 AM	The court master alerts the courtroom that the counsel has exhausted her time. After the polite request, the bench gives permission to complete her argument.

11:13 AM	Speaker 2 from the informant side comes up and takes up the dias, and directly launches into her arguments with gusto.
11:19 AM	The counsel crafts convincing arguments and tries to prove a deep understanding of the memo and case laws which captivates the court’s attention and sways the proceedings in her favor. It invites the questioning from the bench.
11:24 AM	In the face of this formidable obstacle, the counsel remains resolute and steadfast, continuing to artfully craft her arguments with poise and precision. The court master brings up the time alert.
11:27 AM	The counsel finds herself in choppy waters, struggling to navigate the line of questioning. Despite of the best efforts made by the counsel, the bench launches into another volley of probing questions making the counsel sweat under pressure. With the show-up of time alert, the counsel makes a polite request to the bench to complete her argument. The bench nods in affirmation.
11:30 AM	The informant side stands up together to pray before the court of law for their case.
11:31 AM	The opposite party solicits permission to approach the dias and start their arguments, giving a vivid picture of the the facts and issues assosiated with their case.

11:34 AM	As Speaker 1 presents his arguments with unwavering conviction, the courtroom falls silent, captivated by the sheer force of his logic and reasoning. With each point he makes, the bench nods giving a convinced sight to the counsel.
11:39 AM	The silence is shortlived, as the bench puts their brunt of grilling on the counsel. He musters all his energy to bolster his stance to sway the judges with his arguments.
11:42 AM	With the display of time alert, the counsel can be seen slightly rushing with his arguments.
11:44 AM	The hon’ble bench questions the counsel, to which he seems a little flustered, but answers nonetheless, his voice cracking a bit. The court master makes the court aware of the time.
11:47 AM	With the court master notifying the counsel of his lapsed time, the bench continues with a flurry of questions. The discourse of inquiry and questioning takes the form of constant dialogue.
11:52 AM	Speaker 2 from the Opposite Party takes up the dias. His well-crafted arguments are presented with ease and grace that belies the complexity of the legal issues at hand, leaving no doubt that he is a master of his craft.
11:56 AM	With the counsel facing the brunt of questioning, he meets each question head-on, skillfully weaving in relevant legal precedents and persuasive reasoning to support his position. The tumultuous weather in Raipur adds an extra layer of intrigue and drama to the proceedings.

11:59 AM	The counsel challenges the bench’s contention of non-applicability of the established precedent. With the heated contention of the bench, that the counsel’s arguments are self-contradictory, the counsel can be seen a little tensed.
12:02 AM	As the courtroom becomes a refuge from the storm raging outside, the seriousness and solemnity of the proceedings explore new heights! The counsel effectively tries to persuade the bench of his contentions. With a nod from the bench, the counsel gets a smile.
12:05 AM	With the show-up of the time alert, the counsel seeks an extension, which the bench generously allows.
12:08 AM	The counsel appears increasingly uneasy under the intense scrutiny from the bench, as it stresses on authoritative citations.
12:09 AM	With the grant of a minute to conclude the arguments from the bench, the bench points out a drafting error for which the opposite party pleads guilty.
12:12 AM	The informant side takes up the dias for rebuttal and the voice of the speaker booms in the courtroom like a storm. The informant side faces the questioning from the bench and the bench points out a flaw in their criticism.
12:15 AM	The defending counsel responds to the rebuttal questions with confidence and clarity. Again, the bench interrupts and serves the counsel with questions. With the display of time alert, the first preliminary rounds conclude.

Court Room 2

10:59	All the judges and participants have arrived. The court is in session and the excitement is palpable- with the arguments now set and the competition at the edge.
11:03	The counsel 01 from team 01 begins his speech. Before moving to the arguments he present all the facts before the panel.
11:04	The counsel’s speech gets interrupted by the judges with certain questions related to the nomenclature used. The counsel deals with the questions while maintaining proper calm.
11:11	The Counsel continues his speech after answering the questions posed by the panel.
11:13	To support his arguments, the counsel cites certain case. Before he could complete the argument the court cleark reminds the counsel of the paucity of time. The anxiety increases as the counsel now has to race against time and judges.

11:15	The speaker 01 from Team 01 concludes his argument and the second speaker from the team takes the stage, receiving the baton towards victory.
11:17	The panel asks certain questions from the researcher of Team 01.
11:18	Speaker 02 begins his argument and continues without any major interruption by the honourable panel. However, the panel is now interested in the judgement used by the counsel to support his argument.
11:24	The panel intervenes the speech of the speaker and poses him with certain questions. The counsel proceeds to answer the questions posed confidently.
11:27	The panel points out that the counsel is contradicting his own position. The counsel goes on to explain his position and then proceeds with his argument.
11:29	The panel asks the counsel to wrap up the issue that he is dealing with and move on to the next issue. The court clerk reminds the counsel of the paucity of time as he proceeds with his arguments.
11:32	The court clerk alerts the counsel and the panel that the time is up. To this the panel awards the counsel 30 seconds to conclude his arguments- in hopes that he makes this award, rewarding.

11:34	The counsel concludes his arguments and presents the prayer.
11:39	Speaker 01 from the respondant’s side asks permission for rebuttals but the panel reminds him of the right sequence and asks him to first move with the arguments. The Counsel appologises and another speaker takes the stage to present the arguments.
11:42	The counsel gets asked whether he agrees with the jurisdiction of the court as presented by the informant’s side. The counsel agrees that he is not challenging the jurisdiction of the panel.
11:44	The counsel from respondent’s side moves to the second argument.
11:48	The counsel continues with his arguments without any interruptions by the panel.
11:50	The panel asks the counsel clarification regarding the meaning of an oligopoly market. The counsel provides the answer and proceeds with his argument.

11:53	The Court clerk reminds of the time constraints. The Counsel seeks permission to move futher and is granted with the permission.
11:54	The Panel asks the counsel certain question and seems satisfied by the answer provided by the counsel.
11:56	The court clerk notifies that the time is up. The counsel seeks permission for extenstion and is granted the same by the panel, the rains having cooled down the aura.
11:57	The panel asks the counsel to conclude his arguments within one minute. The counsel submits his arguments and the second speaker from the respondent’s side take the stage.
11:59	The Counsel greets the panel and seeks permission to proceed with his speech and before proceeding he presents a brief overwiew of the two arguments. The overview seems satisfactory, as opposed to the overcast sky outside.
12:01	The counsel asks if the panel has any questions and after the panel denies he proceeds on with his first submission.
12:04	The speaker is interrupted by the panel and gets asked certain clarifications. The speaker provides the clarification and moves on with his arguments.
12:08	The counsel after taking the permission of the panel moves on with his second argument.
12:09	The panel questions the speaker’s submission that he is not in a dominant position. The counsel clarifies that he will be dealing with the same in his coming arguments and proceeds.
12:11	The court clerk reminds the counsel of the time constraints.
12:13	The Counsel cites a range of judgements to clarify his position regarding the dominant position of the respondent’s.
12:15	The court clerk reminds the counsel that the time is up and so the counsel winds up his arguments and cites the prayer after the permission of the panel.
12:16	The arguments from both of the sides has ended and the rebuttal starts.
12:16	Counsel from team 01 starts with his rebuttals.
12:20	After the counsel from team 01 concludes his rebuttal counsel from team 02 takes the stage for the rebuttal on his side.
12:22	Before the counsel could start with his rebuttals the panel asks him to wind up his rebuttals within the time limit and the counsel proceeeds,

12:23	Rebuttals from both of the sides are over, as the rounds come to an end now. The judges offer some feedback to the participants.
12:29	The panel is providing all the speakers from both of the teams with certain feedbacks.

Court Room 3

10.58	The judges have arrived and proceedings are going to started within few minutes- the participants are all set with their arguments and there is a visible thrill in the courtroom.
11.01	Speaker 1 from informant side has started presenting the brief account of facts of the case at hand and honourable judges are seeking clarification on facts
11.06	Speaker 1 goes on further to present her arguments and provisions of law involved in the case while the honorable judges have started the grilling. The counsel is bombarded with a lot of questions- almost all her statements are followed by one.
11.09	Speaker 1 fumbles with every consequent question, judges further ask her to stick to the point. Judges seem a little dissattisfied with her answer.

11.14	The counsel is having a tough time convincing the honorable judges- the test seems tougher now, realer even. Judges further asks the counsel to proceed with another issue.
11.17	Courtroom clerks inform about the paucity of time to the counsel and they are still left with their arguments. Judges grant a few more minutes to the informants, hoping that the conclusion would be satisfying.
11.22	Counsel seeks permission to proceed further with the issue and here comes the speaker 2, seeming confident. Lets see how he answers the judges. judges asking for relevant provisions of law as they interrupt him. Too many questions and he’s already started getting distracted.
11.24	The speaker brings to the notice of bench ,some crucial facts and backs them with further case laws. Is this an attempt to salvage what’s lost- or maybe not?

11.28	The speaker has no answers to the presented case and pleads ignorance. Judges futher askes him to proceed with futher issues. But is ignorance truly a bliss is something only the judges know, in this context at least.
11.32	Judges seek clarification on the dates and when the informant filed the case with CCI and asks them to look into section 21 of the Act. Judges go on futher to read the section himself, and reprimands the counsel for not being aware of the provisions. Things are heating up in Court Room 3- for better or for worse, that remains to be seen.
11.34	Due to time contraints, the counsel moves on further by presenting the prayer before the bench.
11.36	The speaker 1 from the opposition presents his contentions before the bench.
11.41	The respected judges continue asking questions and do not agree with the reasoning provided by the counsel to substatiate his argumennt. Dissatisfaction is evident in the courtroom, but is it enough to tip the scales in the negative for the team remains to be seen.
11.45	The judge is addressing his concerns about certain provisions and draws all his attention towards the researcher and interrupts him mid-speech. The weight is now on the shoulders of the researcher.
11.47	The speaker 1 from opposite party goes on further to present other contentions and substantiates it with relevant case laws.
11.51	Certain landmark cases have been used in the relevance, judges continue to interrupt the speaker beacuse the case pertains to different sector. The relevance does not seem rather relevant right now.
11.54	Speaker 1 is done with his submission before the honorable bench. Here comes speaker 2, and continues to present an expalnation to back her arguments- but will the back turn to backtrack as the questions are thrown at her?
11.59	The weather outside is rainy, but our courtroom is all heated up as the counsel is unable to answer the questions of bench.

12.03	The speaker 2 somehow, with lot of difficulty continues to present her submissions. Is the storm outside or inside?
12.07	The counsel concludes the speech as the thunder shakes the courtroom.
12.11	The preliminary round comes to an end with the storm outside still raging on.

Court Room 4

10:54	The judges arrive and the competition commences as the participants start with stating relevant facts and proposition of the case.
10:59	The judges start cross questioning the Speaker 1 of the informant party and the real test begins now.
11:01	Speaker 1 from informant party succesfully answer the questions with full confidence, clearly showing sharp skill and thorough preparation.
11:03	Speaker 2 from the informant party starts stating facts and judgments relevant to the case, they establish their grounds clearly.

11:07	The judge seems to take a keen interest with the speaker’s content and does not interrupt him at all- a rare event in the mooting scenario. The court clerk makes the participant aware about the paucity of time.
11:10	The judges interrupt the speaker, startling the speaker a bit. However the speaker manages to satisfy the judges with his answers by stating relavant facts and judgments
11:12	The speaker is again reminded about the paucity of time by the court clerks. He has 5 minutes left to complete his facts and arguments – racing against time to win.
11:14	The judges yet again interrupt the speaker about the barriers in a free market, themselves barricading the arguments. The speaker is taken aback and his ground seems to be shaken a bit. He fails to answer the question of the judge and with that, his time to speak ends.
11:17	Speaker 1 again commences his argument by answering the question of the judge which his team member could not answer. The judges seem satisfied with his answer or maybe with the spirit of teamwork. Or both.
11:21	The speaker is thrown a question at him but he handles it confidently, after the initial nervousness. However, the judges do not seem satisfied with the same. the cour clerks inform the speaker regarding the paucity of time as he continues to argue his way through the heated round.
11:24	Speaker 1 of the opposite party starts stating the relevant facts and judgments to support her argument, in a confident and unshakable voice. She starts by stating questions and describing terminology and sections relevant to the case. The judges dont interrupt her again, seeming to provide her more leeway than before.

11:30	After the speaker is done stating relevant facts and judgements, the judges start questioning her. Yet again, in a bold voice, she succesfully answers their question and seems unshakable. The competetion ground is getting heated up and getting interesting.
11:32	Speaker starts answering the legal question 2 of the case, however she is interrupted by the judge and he questions her whether she has a relevant judgement related to the proposition. She has 5 minutes left to prove her point. A problematic question and race of time seems to make her rush a bit.
11:37	The time is up. however, she is still left with whole lot of content, her nervousness now making her stutter.
11:38	Speaker 2 of the opposite party commences with his speech and states how a commission is pro competetive while stating sections relevant to the facts of the case. Just like his team member, he seems confident and poised.
11:42	The judges seem to be very patient and serene. Again, just like the previous participants, they dont interrupt him at all. The luxury of argument completion seems to be at the disposal of the current court room.
11:45	Or maybe not- the judges finally interrupt him and starts questioning, but the speaker seems well prepared. He answers every question that the judges have challenged him with.
11:47	In a series of unfortunate events, the counsel is challenged by a power shortage. The speaker could not speak because he could not read at all. He asks for pardon from the judges for the break in the courtroom aura due to the power shortage. As if this was not enough, he is reminded by the court clerk about the paucity of time, thus loosing an edge as well as time.
11:51	Power comes back, but the speaker’s confidence not so much. He starts to stutter and rushes in order to complete his arguments and prove his point. Judges seem to understand and do not interrupt him and lets him finish
11:54	The speaker makes a confident come back as he puts solid arguments in order to answer the equally solid question of the judges. But looks like the speaker is out of luck. Times up! The speaker is asked continue by the judges though, the luck favouring the speaker.
11:57	The speaker concludes the arguments of the opposite party.
11:58	Speaker 1 from the informant party comes forward in order to cancel out the arguments of his opposition by stating how the opposite party has not laid down relevant facts related to the case.

11:59	The speaker 1 from the opposite party concludes his argument on the behalf of his team.
12:05	The rounds conclude and the judge’s deliberations begin.

Court Room 5

10:55	The anxiousness in the court room is all ramped up as the judges have arrived
10:55	The courtroom proceedings finally begin with much awaited excitement. Both the sides look prepared.
10:56	The speaker from the informant side has stepped on the dias and starts proceeding with her arguments.
10:59	The counsel is unable to persuade the bench with her arguments.
11:00	While the judges listen intently the counsel continues with her arguments uninterrupted.
11:02	The panel seems satisfied with the contention of the counsel, the counsel proceeds ahead.
11:03	The counsel is again questioned by the bench with respect to a fact mentioned by the counsel.
11:05	The judges seem prepared to grill the counsel as the speaker is bombarded with a series of questions
11:07	The counsel is ardently trying to prove her contention by referring to the bare Act to support contentions.
11:09	The speaker is reminded of the paucity of time by the court cleark.
11:10	The counsel quickly proceeds with the rest of the issues while the panel listens intently and pose no further questions to the speaker.
11:12	The bench proceeds to pose questions as the counsel tries to determine her contention before the bench.
11:14	The counsel requests for an extension of time which is granted by the Hon’ble bench.
11:15	The panel seeks the relevance of certain facts and their relation to the issue being presented by the counsel.
11:16	The co-counsel takes the dias and starts with her arguments.
11:17	The co-counsel moves with the rest of the issues with confidence and vigor. The judges seem satisfied with the arguments since they pose no questions to the co counsel.
11:20	The co-counsel fumbles in between, the judges anticipating the same immediately pose a question.
11:26	The co counsel proceeds with rest of the issues finding it difficult to persuade the judges
11:28	the co-counsel tactfully deals with the further questions posed by the judges, however, the panel is convinced to test the knowledge of the speaker.
11:30	The co-counsel is left speechless and moves towards the remaining issues due to paucity of time.
11:32	The co-counsel is repeatedly met with difficult questions and the anxiousness rises as the time for the speaker is about to end. The counsel seeks permission of the bench to move towards the prayer.

11:35	The counsel from the opposite party approaches the dias to present their case.
11:37	The counsel seeks permission from the panel to proceed with their argument.
11:40	While dealing with the issues at hand, the counsel is interrupted by the bench with questions that are smoothly dealt with by the counsel. the judges diligently listen to the arguments presented by the counsel.
11:43	The counsel proceeds with her argument while dealing confidently with questions posed by the judges.
11:45	The counsel continues with the issues to be dealt with and the panel listens without posing any questions.
11:49	The panel seeks relevance to a contention raised by the counsel which leads the counsel to fumble.
11:52	The counsel is repeatedly posed with questions with respect to the contentions raised by her, however, the counsel is struggling to satisfy the judges.
11:54	The counsel is asked to proceed further, in spite of being dissatisfied with her arguments. The counsel is reminded of the paucity of time.
11:56	The co-counsel approaches the dias and deals with further issues. The judges immediately pose a question with respect to the facts of a landmark case which the co counsel is able to deal with.
11:59	Satisfied with the arguments of the co-counsel, the judges allow her to proceed further.

12:00	The co-counsel seems to be prepared with her arguments and is able to deal with most of the questions posed by the judges. the panel seeks clarification to a certain contention raised by the co counsel.
12:04	The co-counsel persuades the panel with the help of certain landmark case laws which further satisfies the panel.
12:06	The co-counsel is unable to comprehend the series of questions posed by the panel. The initial stance of the co-counsel is left weak after the panel continues to grill with questions of contemporary relevance.
12:10	The co-counsel struggles to wrap up the issues within the limited time period. As the clock clicks, the co-counsel requests for an extension of time which the panel readily allows.
12:12	The co-counsel moves to the last limb of the argument while the panel seems to be rummaging through the facts
12:15	The co-counsel seeks permission to proceed with the prayer and humbly submits it.
12:17	As the co-counsel ends with the contention, the court proceeding moves towards the rebuttals.
12:19	The first preliminary round has ended and the judges are ready to tabulate the scores.

Court Room 6

10:40	As the environment of the court room is engulfed with a bit of anxiousness, the arrival of the judges is awaited.
10:55	The judges arrive, swifty go through a few docuemts and seeks carity from the court cleark. Meanwhille, the expression of nervousnessness is rendered on the faces of the speakers.
10:59	The Speaker 01 of the Informants proceeds towards the dias and expains the structure of their arguments.
11:00	The bench asks the speaker to briefy state the facts of the case, while the speaker 01 begins with the facts she is instanty encountered with questions from the bench. The speaker 01 pleads unawarenss of the question asked by the bench.
11:03	Speaker 01 proceeds with highlighting and elaborating the issues relevant to the case and is subject to questions by the bench. The bench asks for precedents to support issue one which is not provided for by the informants.
11:08	Here comes a plethora of questions from the bench, it shakes the conviction of speaker 01 which makes her arguments disoriented. She moves on with the other issues.
11:12	The counsel is subject to question for each of their issues and is asked by the bench to justify their stance based on the memo submitted.

11:16	The time paucity is brought to the notice of the counsel, whilst the speaker goes on which her speech and the bench interrupting her with continuous questions, the opposite party is asked to come up a rebuttal for an intriguing argument given by the informants in their memo.
11:18	Although the speaker is out of the time alloted for her speech, she is graciously granted an extension of a minute by the bench and she quickly summerises her subimissions.
11:20	The co-counsel from the informants approaches the dias. He clarifies the issues he will be dealing with, while the judges seeks clarificataion regarding time from the court clerk.
11:22	The co-counsel confidently goes ahead with his issues and submissions, and requests the judge to refer to the compendium. The bench interrupts and cross-questions the speaker.
11:25	The speaker crisply substantiates his point, however the bench seems not so satified and asks for highlighting any case law to support the argument.
11:28	The speaker request for aid of the researcher and goes ahead with the same. Building back his confidence he proceeds with substantiating his argument with conviction while citing authoritative case laws.
11:30	The bench asks the speaker to highlight the facts of a particular case citied which leaves the speaker astouned. The researcher comes to the rescue and aids the co-counsel to get out of the situation.
11:33	The speaker indulges with the next issue, and as the trend goes, he is again posed several questions by the bench. The speaker get anxious about the time paucity, the panel assures them for an extension by a minute.

11:35	Even though this is the last minute left with the speaker to conclude with the issue, he is still interrupted by questions from the bench. Unable to satisfactorily complete his submission, he is nevertheless stuc with answering the question posed by the panel.
11:39	The co-counsel of the informants completes his submission and the counsel of the opposite party approaches the dias.
11:40	The speaker is asked by the bench to ascertain her satisfaction to the facts highlighted by the informants and she repies to it in affirmative. As she moves ahead with her submissions she is asked by the bench to speak a bit louder.
11:43	She smoothly moves ahead with her submissions and the questions subjected by the bench breaks the flow. However, she swiftly answers the questions and moves ahead with her submissions. The opposite party have an expression of conviction on their faces.
11:47	The bench demands for authoritative case laws to support her argument, and with no hint of vagueness she moves ahead and lists down the case laws to substantiate her claims.
11:50	The counsel is encountered with a series of questions fundamental to her stance, she overcomes the arduous line of questioning with excellent advocacy.
11:52	With just two minutes in hand to conclude the submission the speaker has the second issue still left to substantiate, and is asked by the panel to quickly jump on the other issue.
11:54	The bench courteously grants an extension of two minutes to the speaker. A question is posed to the counsel which she was not able to answer distinctly.
11:56	The time left with the counsel flies and the co-counsel approaches the dias.
11:58	The bench highlights that most of the people essential in the case are not at all highlighted yet and asks the co-counsel to assure the same in his submissions.
12:00	Cause of the unexpected weather outside, the sounds of thunder engulfs the court room and according to its suitability the co-counsel goes ahead with his submission with louder though composed modulation in his voice.

12:03	The bench highlights a point which is contradictory to the arguments made by the co-counsel and demands for an explaination of the same, the speaker pleads for ignorance, however is asked to particularly elucidate on the same.
12:06	The researcher comes to the rescue, however the bench is still not satistifed with the dismissal of the contradiction. The speaker stands bewildered and moves ahead with further submissions.
12:08	The bench expresses their discontent with the contentions of the opposite party and asks the speaker to convince them by substantiating thier stance.
12:10	While the speaker running out of time and not able to give convincing replies to the bench, he is asked to quickly move ahead and sum up his submissions.
12:11	The bench being pleasantly gracious as they are, grants an extension of 3 minutes to the speaker to make his submission with tranquility in a way which is easily apprehendible to the bench.
12:14	Though a bit shaky on his confidence, the speaker gathers himself and moves ahead with his submissions. The speaker is interruped and is asked to cut short and specify what they require from the bench.
12:17	The opposite party completes their submission, meanwhile the counsel of the informants approaches the dias for submitting rebuttals.
12:19	The rebuttals made by the informants seems to have piqued the interest of the bench and as a result are granted an extra minute by the bench. The bench gives a detailed situation and poses a question pertaining to their relevance with the case.
12:22	Granting further extenstion to the informants, the bench highlights a particular argument given by the opposite party and asks the infromants to rebut the same, which the counsel convincingly seems to have accomplished.

12:30

Subsequently, the first preliminary round concludes.

Court Room 7

10:30	Both the teams have arrived in the courtroom. Though the honourable bench has not come yet, it seems that the courtroom is filled with the feeling of anxiousness.
10:52	The honourable judges have arrived in the courtroom. Both the teams tell their time allotments to the honourable bench.
10:55	The speaker 1 from the informant party asks the permission to approach the dias and starts with her arguments. The honourable bench grants permission for the same.
11:00	While the speaker was briefing about her facts, one of the honourable judges ask her to stop and start with her first issue. The counsel starts with her first issue, and faced the first question from the honourable judges. She seems confident with her arguments and replies.
11:07	The counsel asks permission to move with their fourth issue. The honourable bench grants the same, but asks a question about the relevence of that issue. The speaker treis to establish the relevance of that issue with the help of an analogy, but the honourable bench does not seem satisfied with her answer.
11:13	The counsel was briefing her arguments, but the honourable bench asks for more clarifications. The counsel replied to same by mentioning clarification number 7.
11:16	The judges again interrupts and asks few question regarding discounts, but the counsel seems confident and replies very well. Due to paucity of the time, the counsel concludes her arguments.

11:19	The second speaker from Informant party asks the permission to approach the dias and proceed further with his arguments. The judges grant the permission for the same. The 2nd speaker is briefing his arguments without facing any questions from the honourable judges till now.
11:23	To clarify one of his arguments, the counsel mention paragraph 31 and explain that paragraph in detail. One of the judges asks about a judgement from the counsel which talks about the presumption of dominance. The counsel seems quite aware about that case and answers the judges but they does not seem satisfied.
11:25	One of the judges asks one more question, but due to time constraints, permits him to move further with his next arguments. One of the Judges again abrupts him in the middle and asks him to give more details about the market share of the six competitors of the market.
11:29	The fierce questionings continue from the judges. Though the counsel is trying to satisfy the honourable bench and even getting some amount of success.
11:34	Due to paucity of time, the counsel has been allowed to conclude his argument. The judges now ask the counsel to read the prayer. The counsel start reading his prayer, but the judges get angry as the counsel has not memorise his prayer. The counsel asks pardon for the same, and the judges graciously pardon him.
11:36	The first speaker from the opposition party asks for permission to approach the dias and proceed with his arguments. The judges grant the permission for the same.

11:40	The judges seems unhappy with the counsel as he is reading his summary and asks him to justify his arguments. The counsel seems to be getting anxious due to the line of questions passed by the judges.
11:45	The counsel is hesitantly trying to answer the line of questions put by the honourable bench, but the judges seems very unsatisfied. The judges even show their dissatisfaction on the less number of case cited by the opponent party.
11:50	Due to time constraint, the first speaker is being allowed to conclude his arguments. The second speaker from the opposite party asks the permission to approach the dias and starts with her arguments. The permission for the same is granted by the judges.
11:55	The honourable bench again expresses their displeasure on the mere reading of the memorial by the counsel. The counsel seems very hesitant and underconfident due to this.
12:00	The judges ask about the microsoft case from the counsel, but it remains unanswered. The counsel is again asked to give few examples regarding a type of agreement, which is successfully given by the counsel.

12:05	The grilling from the judges is incessantly going on. The situation of the courtroom gets very tense as the judges find that one of the arguments provided by the opponent side in the memorial is incomplete.
12:09	The fate of the opponent side does not seem good as the bench shows their displeasure on the footnotes cited by the opponent party. Due to paucity of time, the bench allows the counsel to recite her prayer.
12:13	The rebuttal is being presented by the Informant party. But, one of the judges questions the rebuttals presented by the counsel on the jurisdiction part. On this the counsel asks for pardon and concluded his rebuttal.
12:15	The first preliminary round is completed.

Court Room 8

10:53	Honourable Judges enter the courtroom, and with anxious hearts yet confident faces of the participants, the proceedings commence.
10:55	Speaker 1 introduces herself. Judges ask the counsel to skip the statement of facts. The counsel confidently briefs the judges about the issues at hand. She refers to her co-counsel for relevant documents, the team coordination evident since the beginning itself. The documents are submitted to the judges.
10:58	The honourable judge questions the counsel about a section mentioned in the speech. The counsel seems a bit flustered but proceeds to give a satisfactory answer.
11:02	The panel poses counter-questions regarding the legal procedure mentioned in the counsel’s speech. The heated grilling continues, the counsel attempts to answer but the panel does not seem satisfied. The steam seems to be rising in the courtroom.
11.04	The panel inquires with the counsel about relevant precedents to prove her case. The same is answered rather vaguely.
11.07	Honourable judge questions the counsel about the ratio decidendi of the case at hand. However she fails to answer and is asked to continue with her arguments.
11.11	The panel seeks clarification from the counsel on the fine details regarding the rights of companies. The counsel puts up a firm face and answers the question. The judges do not seem satisfied and the counter-questions continue.
11.11	The courtclerk rings the bell indicating the end of the allotted speech time.
11.12	The bench questions the counsel about the definition of ‘unfair practices’ and the section in which the same is mentioned. The counsel seems flustered and admits to not knowing the answer. How would this impact the result- only time can tell.

11.15	Counsel requested to conclude her speech as the allotted time has been exhausted. Counsel pleads to present one more issue which is denied by the panel. The race against time is lost in this courtroom.
11.16	Counsel concludes her speech after being denied additional time yet again, a disheartened face displaying her dismay.
11.17	Co-counsel of the informant party takes her stand in the podium and begins firmly. She is interrupted by the honourable judge and is questioned about the preamble of the competition act.
11.19	Although the co-counsel is grilled by the panel, she seems to be holding a strong ground.
11:20	The panel points out a logical fallacy in the co-counsel’s argument. The co-counsel attempts to give a clarification for the same but fails as the panel does not seem satisfied by the answer. Will this fallacy falter the entire ground for the team?
11:20 AM	The courtclerk rings the bell indicating the end of the allotted speech time for the co-counsel.
11.21	The counsel pleads for additional time as she is yet to present her arguments in entirety. She is granted the same by the esteemed judges. But will the arguments be worth the wait or not is yet to be seen.
11.24	The court clerk rings the second bell reminding the court of the paucity of time. The arguments or the time- the completion of only one is possible.
11.26	The honourable judges seems dissatisfied with the arguments posed by the co-counsel and a line of questioning follows. The same is staggeringly answered by the speaker. Staggering lines are tough to walk on, evidently.
11.28	The honourable judge reminds the speaker of the constraint of time and is asked to conclude in the next minute. A few questions are posed to the speaker, the answer to which is given by referring to a handful landmark judgements.
11:30	The court clerk rings the bell yet again indicating the slipping time. The esteemed panel proceeds to offer the speaker an additional minute yet again. Lets hope the speaker doesn’t slip along with the time.
11.31	the co-counsel is firmly directed by the panel to sum up her speech instantly and offer her prayers. The co-counsel of the informant party concludes the speech

11.33	The room is already heated with anticipatory energy as the the counsel of the opposite party seeks the permission to begin. The same is granted by the panel.
11:34	The speaker seems to be confident and holds the attention of the rooms as he poses the arguments to the panel.
11.36	Honourable judge inquires about the facts of a precedent case and seeks clarification from the counsel, however, the counsel does not seem to have much clarifications to provide as the vague answers fail to impress the judges. The confident bravado seems to falter a little.
11.41	Counsel is questioned on the exclusivity of certain softwares mentioned in his speech and the stand of the opposite party on the same. He attempts to answer but struggles to put forth his point and the same is evident on the faces of the judges as the line of heated questions continue.
11.42	The court-clerk indicates the end of speech time for the counsel. He is however allowed to continue with his line of argument.
11.46	As the time continues to slip away quickly while the counsel attempts to prove his point, he is grilled by the panel over the minute details and explanations of the arguments posed.
11.48	An exchange of arguments continue over the functioning of the share market as the panel grills the earnest speaker.
11.51	The courtclerk announces the end of reserved time for the counsel’s speech. He thanks the esteemed judges and concludes the speech.
11.52	The speaker, now the opposing counsel having taken the podium, attempts to lay out the structure of his speech but is interrupted by the esteemed judge and is asked to provide the definition of ‘competitive’. The speaker evidently didn’t expect the question as he falters to answer.
11.54	The bench inquires the speaker about the existence of any relevant legal precedent. The speaker attempts to submit a document to the panel but the same is deemed unnecessary by the panel.

11.56	The panel seeks more clarification from the speaker , the answers of which seems to satisfy the judges to some extent.
11.58	The counsel engages in extensive explanation of his arguments. he also lays out an impressive structure to his speech. The rain is not on his parade today.
12.01	As the counsel is questioned about the statuses of the relevant market and the opposite party’s position in the same, he seems to answer satisfactorily.
12.05	The honourable judge seeks definition of ‘dominant’ position from the speaker. He attempts to answer the same by referring to section 4 of the competition Act but evidently fails to do as the judges make their dissatisfaction apparent.
12.06	The panel makes the co-counsel aware of the paucity of time as the court-clerk rings the bell indicating the same.
12.08	The opposing party concludes their opening argument with humble prayers.
12.11	The counsel from the informant party having the stage to offer her counter arguments, does so confidently and offers her arguments boosting the competitive spirit of the room. She swiftly concludes her speech and the counsel from the opposing party comes forth to offer his counter arguments as well.
12.13	The speaker firmly presents his side. The end of the counsel’s speech marks the end of the preliminary round 1. The esteemed panel congratulates the participants for their speeches and gives valuable feedbacks.

Court Room 9

10:54	With the arrival of the Honorable judges, the courtroom is filled with a mixed feeling of enthusiasm and anxiousness.
11:00	The first speaker from the informant’s side seeks permission from the bench to elaborate on the statement of facts.
11:02	The bench is satisfied with the statement of facts. The learned counsel now seeks permission to proceed with the arguments.
11:05	A question has been put forward by the Honorable judges with regard to the first issue. The bench does’t not seem to be satisfied with the answers advanced by the counsel.
11:09	The team is fidgeting nervously because of the string of questions thrown by the bench to which the speaker is requesting a pardon. This seems a pressurizing point for the team.

11:14	The counsel concludes her argument for the second issue. The bench seems content with the presentation but has raised valid questions to be tackled. Her co-counsel seeks permission to approach the dais to illuminate the bench with further two issues.
11:17	The bench posed a question on the meaning of ‘market’ to which the counsel tried answering concisely. The bench noticed a contrast in the speaker’s arguments, to which the speaker chose to remain silent.
11:25	The counsel seems fazed with the relevant questions of the judges. She answers the questions restlessly while the clerks alert her about her time limit.
11:28	The Informant side has concluded its arguments on the issues and the dias is being approached by the first speaker of the opposite party.
11:32	The respondent’s counsel reveals their side of material facts before the bench and then she seeks permission to move towards the statement of jurisdiction. The permission has been denied by the Honorable bench. She then informs that she would be dealing with issues 1 and 3 while her co-counsel would take on issues 2 and 4.
11.38	The counsel gives a brief synopsis of her arguments and then proceeds to elaborate on the first issue. The arguments advanced by the speaker are interrupted by the judges but the answers given by her seem quite appeasing to the bench.

11:43	The learned counsel seems well-versed in her arguments. The data and statistics forwarded by her seem to strengthen her stance and she is allowed to proceed with issue number 3.
11:48	The counsel’s arguments seem to be well-received by the bench. Despite reaching her time limit, the judges allowed her to quickly provide a summary of her arguments. The dias is now taken by her co-counsel.
11:53	The second speaker from the respondent’s side begins with issue number 2. The well-structured arguments of the counsel are helping her to tackle the queries of the bench and she has a sense of assertiveness in her answers.
11.58	The panel finds a contradiction in the argument of the counsel to which she makes a blunder. The counsel tries to convince the panel but fails to do the same. The ladyship is continuously attacking the fulcrum of the counsel’s argument.
12.04	The bench demands legal precedents to support the arguments made by the counsel. The counsel humbly seeks for pardon and to proceed with issue number 4 although the clerks have already alerted that her time is up.

12:08	The stormy weather both, inside and outside the courtroom is leading to a jittery feeling as the teams argue before the bench.
12:11	The second counsel finally concludes her arguments and recites the prayer from the respondent’s side. The informant’s counsel raises valid questions for rebuttal. The respondent’s counsel tries to counter all the questions contently and the informant’s side is left speechless.
12.15	The court clerks humbly asks the teams to leave the courtroom and that concludes the first round of prelims.

Court Room 10

10:42	The participants of both teams have arrived in the courtroom. The courtroom awaits the arrival of the judges to commence the competition.
10:57	The judge asks the parties to commence the proceedings. The speaker 1 from the informant side starts by briefly stating the facts.
11:01	The infromants ask permission to move further with the issues. The Honourable Judge questions the speaker but does not seem satisfied with subsequent answer.
11:06	The Court Clerk subtly informs about the completion of first 10 minutes of the proceedings. Once again the speaker is getting questioned on Isssue no 2 presented.
11:12	The court is again engaged in an argument . To substantiate better, the speaker requests the judges to refer to the Moot Memo to explain his arguments.
11:15	The Judges ask the Informants to sum up their arguments due to the pausity of time. The speaker obliges and moves on to sum up the arguments.

11:17	The Court Clerk informs the court about the paucity of time. Informants ask for extenstion of 1 minute which is granted by the Judges. The counsel is advancing to conclude the issue at hand.
11:20	The second speaker from the informant’s side come up to the podium and starts by presenting his arguments. The Honourable Judge questions the speaker regarding the relevancy of the sections provided in the explanation .
11:24	The speaker is cross questioned as the judge seems unsatisfied by the reasoning presented. Judges ask for a better argument and reasoning on the issue. The Court Clerk annouces the lack of time so judges ask the proceed further.
11:30	The speaker refers to the authorities mentioned in the memorendum to support his arguments. The opposite party seems to be watchful of the argument and is noting the pointers .
11:34	The researcher of the informants’ team seem to be engaged in the process in order to rescue the speaker from the deadlock situation. One of the Judge asks the researcher to present a case to support an argument.

11:39	Themembers of the informants team conclude their arguments. Judges break off the session for few minutes before starting with the opposite party’s side.
11:42	Judges appear to be going through the opposite party’s Moot Memorendum. The opposite party awaits their turn with mixed expressions of confidence and anxiousness.
11:45	The first speaker form the oppposite side puts forward the stucture of his speech. The Honourable Judges suggest the speaker to skip the facts and start with the issues and the Judges permit the same.
11:48	Due to the sudden disconnectivity of the current, the proceedings are halted for 40 seconds and the Judges ask the Court Clerk to stop the timer for that duration.
11:51	The opposite party presents their arguments and are questioned about the validity of the same. The speaker is asked to support his argument with the authority of a valid case law.
11:55	The confidence of the first speaker of the opposite party appears to be wanning. The tension increases as the Court Clerk notifies about the paucity of the time. The challenges for the counsel seem to be never-ending as the judges now put forward a question as well. The speaker could not satisfy the court.
11:59	The stormy weather seems to complementing the courtroom’s tense environment. The Honourable Judge asks the speaker to conclude his speech and speaker obliges to do the same.

12:04	Speaker 2 from the opposite party’s side begins with his speech . He is interupted several times by the Judge . A tab is passed on by the researcher to the speaker. This seems to have boosted his confidence.
12:10	The Informant’s seem to be weighing their arguments with that of the opposite party. The speaker picks up a faster pace to present his arguments due to lack of time but is again interrupted by the Judge to put forward an evidence for his arguments.
12:14	The courtroom’s atmosphere is strained as the speaker concludes his speech . The speaker from the Informant’s side arrives and presents the rebuttals.
12:17	The speaker from opposite party arrives and presents his side. He seems confident and rebuts the informants by citing relevant legal provisions. With this the round is declared concluded by the judges.

Court Room 11

10:55	All the Honourable Judges and participants have arrived. Both teams are being briefed about the quintessential rules that must be followed in the courtroom.
10:58	The proceedings begin as the first counsel from Informant takes a step forward to present her arguments before the Honourable Judges.
11:03	Counsel 1 from Informant continues her arguments with confidence while answering the questions from the judges.
11:06	The Counsel seems a bit confused as the judges asked her whether there can be horizontal, vertical & complementary overlaps present at the same time.
11:09	The line of questioning doesn’t appear to be ending soon. In the middle of which, clerks rang the bell for 5 minutes remaining. The air above the Informant team seems to be more pressurized now.
11:13	The Counsel is not able to move forward with her arguments as the judges continue to present questions before her. Her answers, though tackling, are not sufficient for the bench to proceed with the arguments.
11:14	The Counsel proceeds to her concluding remark with 2 minutes remaining. She asks for an extension of two more minutes, which has been permitted by the Honourable Judges.

11:16	Counsel 1 from Informant has successfully finished her submission.
11:17	Counsel 2 from Team 1 – Informant has moved forward with the permission of the judges to present her arguments. She further briefs that she would be wrapping up her arguments within 14 minutes.
11:21	The clerks rang the bell and made everyone aware of the time left – 10 minutes.
11:22	Although the temperature in the room can be measured at 27 degrees, yet it feels like 40 when we look at the faces of the participants as there have been continous questioning from the side of the Honourable Judges.
11:26	The atmosphere is electric and the emotions are running high as the Counsel proceeds with her concluding arguments. The court clerks step in and inform that only 5 minutes are left.
11:28	Counsel 2 seems to be stuck on a question put forward by one of the Honourable Judges.
11:33	There is a flare of dissatisfaction amongst the judges towards the reasoning presented by the Counsel as they keep on counter questioning her. She looks a bit underconfident yet continues her further arguments.
11:36	The counsel tries to draw a chain of relation as the Honourable Judges put forward a question which is based on paragraph 7 of the moot proposition. But she seems to caught by the Honourable Judge.
11:37	The Counsel has successfully wrapped up her series of arguments.
11:38	Counsel 1 from Team 2 – Opposite Party seeks permission to present his arguments before the Honourable Judges. He appears ready to oppose the information pur forward by Infromant.

11:39	The Counsel is asked by the Honourable Judges to be a bit louder as they were facing some problems listening to his arguments.
11:45	One of the Honourable Judges asks the Counsel to skip directly to the part of complementary overlap. The Counsel seems to be stunned by a question that was asked by one of the Honourable Judges.
11:47	The Honourable Judges seem to be amused by the dress code of one of the Counsels from Team 1 as he has got his slides on.
11:51	One of the Honourable Judges asks the Counsel about the year of a caselaw which has no citation in the document submitted by the team. The Counsel has no answer and he seeks help from the other counsels of his team. The Judges appear to be disappointed by this move.
11:52	The Honourable Judges don’t seem to be satisfied by the examples put forward by the Counsel as they reject the second example furthered by him straight away.
11:57	The clerks notify everyone about the completion of time that was alloted to the Counsel. One of the Honourable Judges asks the Counsel to conclude quickly.
11:59	The Honourable Judges are amused by the fact that the Counsel has constantly mentioned about the 39% share in the company throughout his arguments. Counsel 1 has successfully summed up his arguments.
12:00	Counsel 2 from Team 2 – Opposite Party seeks permission from the Honourable Judges to present his arguments before the court. The Honourable Judges checked with the clerks about the time given to the curent Counsel.

12:05	The weather outside the courtroom might be cold because of the rainfall but the situation inside the courtroom has reached the boiling point as the Honourable Judges have welcomed the current Counsel with numerous questions, not letting the Counsel move forward with his arguments.
12:09	The Counsel seems to be thoughtful as he took a long pause before answering a question about ‘substitutes’ that was put forward by one of the Honourable Judges.
12:12	The Honourable Judges corrected the Counsel for misunderstanding the term ‘relevant market’ as he was constantly referring it as a broader market, and not narrow market.
12:16	The Counsel refers to a new caselaw which is not mentioned in the memorial submitted by the team. The Hnourable Judges seem to be frustrated by this behaviour as this was the second time when the Counsel reffered to a caselaw which is not present in the memorial.
12:18	One of the Honourable Judges stops the Counsel in the middle of his arguments and asked him to conclude. The Counsel seems to be completely ignorant of the request as he continues his arguments about the issue.
12:19	The Counsel tries to present another case which is not mentioned in the memorial. The Honourable Judges didn’t allow it this time.
12:20	The request to offer prayer by the Counsel has been rejected by the Honourable Judges due to paucity of time. He also was not allowed to conclude his arguments.
12:22	The Counsel 2 of Team 1 – Informant successfully concluded her final remarks within the time given.

Court Room 12

10:52 AM	The Judges make their way into the courtroom prompting participants to stand as a mark of respect.
10:55 AM	The Judges declare the court to be in session while the first speaker gears up to speak.The First speaker briefs the judges with the nuances of their speech structure.
10:58 AM	Speaker No.1 begins with her speech. Judges begin with rigourous questioning from the first part of the speech.
11:02 AM	Judge No.1 inquires to clarify the position of the speaker regarding the competence of their arguments. The speaker, after a brief pause, to clear her mind continues answering the questions followed by another set of questions by Judge No.2.
11:06 AM	Judge No.1 interrogates the speaker regarding the knowledge of facts which is duly refered by her in the provided documents. The Judges sense discrepancy in the speaker’s argument which makes her flustered, coupled with the ding of the bell reminding her of the remaining 5 minutes.
11:10 AM	Rigorous questions by both the judges interupts the speaker’s speech, which are answered by her confidently. A clarification regarding the definition leads to a light moment in the courtroom only to be interjected by the reminder of running time making the speaker visibly worried.
11:14 AM	The final bell rings with the speaker not able to complete her line of argument for the first issue much to the dismay of her team members. However the Judges grant a time extension to continue with their strenuous rounds of questioning. The judges finally prompt the speaker to conclude her arguments within a minute’s timeframe.
11:16 AM	The speech is concluded by the first speaker with the second speaker requesting permission from The Lordships to commence with the further line of argument.

11:20 AM	The second speaker confidently argues her way to a careful hearing by the judges only to be interupted with the reminder of 10 mins. The speaker, well versed with facts of the case swiftly connects them with the relevant statutes and is briefly questioned by the judges regarding the definiton clauses.
11:24 AM	While the arguments prompt the opposite party to brush up their arguments and skim through their documents, the informant party is relieved to witness a less rigorous questioning sesssion with the second speaker.
11:27 AM	The second Judge question the speaker regarding the rational nexus between the facts of the case and the arguments furthered by her with the first Judge seconding his counterpart on her observation. The Judges seem confused with the reasoning posited by the speaker but nevertheless prompt to proceed with the further line of argument.
11:31 AM	The Court clerk indicates that the alloted time for the speaker is finished and an extension of 2 minutes is granted as the series of questions aimed at the second speaker for the informant party continue. The speaker keeps her calm while answering the question but seems visibly flustered. The Judges inquire of any further submission by the party.
11:34 AM	The Second speaker presents her last arguments after due permission of the Judges who have again caught the speaker in cross-hairs. The speaker finally beseech the Judges to present their prayer which is delivered by the informant party standing up in respect.

11:38 AM	The Judges grant permission to the opposite party to approach the dias and present their arguments. The first Speaker confidently commences her speech with the first judge inquring a minor clarification from the parties. The speaker positively answered the questions by the judges in a calm manner.
11:42 AM	The first series of questions are followed by examination from the second judge. The first speaker challenges the arguments presented by the informant party and highlights the failure of reasoning.
11:46 AM	The Court clerk indicates the quantum of remaining time to be 5 minutes. The speaker convincingly backs the arguments presented with examples of present relevance.
11:50 AM	The speaker requests a time extension which is duly granted by the judges. The speaker is interrupted by the judge with question and asked the speaker to elucidate on an issue of present relevance. Much to the relief of her team, the speaker confidently convinces the judges with her arguments.
11:54 AM	The judges continue with their questions which are answered by the speaker to her best abilities referring to the compendium.
11:58 AM	After the grant of another 2 minutes, the speaker continue with the line of arguments. the courtroom is interrupted by a loud thunder due to the incessant rain outside. A judge jokingly remarks that the speaker’s arguments raised a storm outside which lightened the tension in the courtroom.
12:02 AM	A riogorus questioning ensues between the speaker and the judges while the storm rages outside, the petrichor sweetening the aura of the courtroom. The First speaker concludes her arguments.

12:02 PM	A riogorus questioning ensues between the speaker and the judges while the storm rages outside, the petrichor sweetening the aura of the courtroom. The First speaker concludes her arguments.
12:06 PM	The second speaker commences her speech, continuing with the arguments furthered by her co-counsel. The speaker requests the judges to refer to the presented documents, connecting them with the relevant facts of the case.
12:10 PM	The speaker presents her arguments with a confident smile. The judges seeming convinced are carefully examining her arguments. After a reminder of 5 minutes being left, the judges inquires the stand of the opposite party regarding the sequence of cogent arguments.
12:14 PM	The speaker proceeds to persuade the judges on the merits of her arguments which is countered by the judges with a baffling question.
12:17 PM	The Speaker requests a time extension which is duly granted by the judges. the Speaker confidently answers the remaining questions posed by the judges along with an extensive reference to the compendiums and relevant statues.
12:20 PM	The second speaker concludes her arguments which is followed by a rebuttal by the informant party. The rebuttal amounting to 4 are rather quickly completed by the informant party. This is followed by the opposite party’s reply to the rebuttal.

12:24 PM	The reply to the rebuttal was interrupted the the judges followed by a series of questions, answered by the speaker confidently.
12:27 PM	The Participants are requested to step out of the courtroom for the due deliberation by the judges.

Court Room 13

10:53 AM	The moot prelims round 1 commences. All the participants are flushed with nervousness while speakers brim with excitement.
10:56 AM	While the courtroom’s electricity may be low, the excitement is high.
10:57 AM	There is urgency in the room as the panel poses difficult questions to Speaker 1. Initially hesitant, Speaker 1 now answers the queries. There is growing sense of nervousness in the court.
11:03 AM	The Informant party is being questioned by the jury about her behavior in court, the speaker is understandably apprehensive about responding.
11:10 AM	There are only 5 minutes left, and the jury member is still asking the speaker reasonable questions. It’s clear from the Speaker’s expression that she feels rushed to respond to the queries.
11:12 AM	Two minutes remain for Speaker 1 and she feels disheartened due to the apprehension of lack of time provided. She feels that time flew.

11:18 AM	Speaker 2 from the informant party appears before the jury, she replies the jury member’s trick question with poise.
11:20 AM	With only ten minutes left, the jury is asking the speaker questions that are crucial for understanding the case. The speaker answers the questions with calmness in her demeanour.
11:24 AM	The counsel further substantiates her arguements as there are 5 minutes left on the clock. She pleads ignorance for a trick question posed by the jury.
11:25 AM	The fluctuating electricity supply in the courtroom does not shake the spirits of the parties as they are determined for the win!
11:26 AM	The Time is up for the Informant party and they informed the jury about their understanding and pleaded before the honourable court.
11:30 AM	The Counsel from the opposing party appears before the court with a confident body language and voice initiating the opposing party’s arguments.
11:35 AM	The counsel with great sense of calmness and appeal makes the jury understand the intricacies of the case.
11:37 AM	The counsel provides for the second submission from the opposing side. The jury as well as the opposing party are engaged in a series of questions for the better understanding of the subject matter.

11:40 AM	The quickfire questions and answers continue uplifting the spirit of the court!
11:42 AM	The counsel shifts the weight of the question to the upcoming counsel for further substantiation.
11:43 AM	Five Minutes remain on the clock and there is a sense of urgency coupled with a desire for the win!
11:46 AM	The counsel pleads ignorance due to his statement highlighting a grave issue in the subject matter in contest.
11:47 AM	The counsel agains pleads ignorance in a dark courtroom due to fluctuating electricity.
11:50 AM	The second counsel of the opposing party appears before the court with an active body language looking to stamp “dominance” before the jury!
11:53 AM	The jury sharply questions the counsel and the counsel answers the questions gracefully!
11:55 AM	The strong winds favour the opposing party as they are not shaken by the winds as well as the storm of questions posed by the jury!
12:00 AM	With only five minutes remaining on the clock and the ferocity of the arguements increasing, the counsel claims ignorance before the jury.
12:05 AM	The sides leave court having successfully argued their positions and feeling a sense of accomplishment. The members of the jury depart with smiles on their faces.

Court Room 14

10:39	The judges are yet to arrive. The teams exhibit a sense of calm while flipping through their prepared documents.
10:51	The judges have arrived. There is utter silence in the courtroom.
10.53	The Round commences. Counsel 1 for the Informant approaches the podium and starts with her arguments.
10.58	One of the judges interrupts the Counsel and asks her to explain further on an argument made.
11:02	The Counsel is yet again questioned by one of the judges. Now, a back-and-forth has started between them.
11:06	The opposite party carefully listens to the arguments being laid down and takes a note of them.
11.09	The Counsel continues with her arguments, even though time is up. There is a heated round of questioning between the counsel and the judges.
11:13	Counsel 1 wraps up her arguments. Counsel 2 now approaches the podium and goes ahead with the issues left. The judges are carefully going through the compendium along with the memorial produced by the informants.

11:17	Counsel 2 is repeatedly questioned by the judges. However such questions are quickly answered by the Counsel and thus permitted to move on to the next issue
11:22	The bench seems dissatisfied with the Counsel’s arguments. A question is therefore put forth regarding a “non compete” clause which the counsel fails to answer.
11:27	With just 2 minutes left, the Counsel still has 2 more sub-issues to deal with. However, the bench keeps her tied with the round of questioning.
11:29	Time is up but the Counsel has been caught with a contradiction between her arguments and the Competition act. The counsel seems flustered. Nonetheless, with a brave face, she moves on to the Prayer for the informant party.
11:34	The informant party has wrapped up their arguments and Counsel 1 for the opposite party approaches the podium and with much fervour, starts with her arguments.
11:38	The Counsel pleads an averment that has not been included in the memorandum and is thus questioned on its validity and the power of the bench to entertain such a pleading.

11:42	The Counsel is once again interrupted by the judges which makes the speaker less calmer than when the rounds started. There is complete silence in the courtroom as the bench continues with their interrogation
11:47	The desire to win is at a high as the teams argue despite the very frequent electricity cuts. The lack of light is compensated by the powerful arguments put forward by the opposite party
11:52	The counsel continues with the issue, without paying heed to the fact that the time allotted is over. The Counsel continues with her arguments and is faced with questions by the bench that leave her unnerved at first but with a deep breath, continues to answer them.
11:58	The Counsel is given a little more time to answer the multiple questions thrown at her and is asked to conclude her arguments. Before she concludes, the Counsel is helped by a co-counsel to answer another question put forth by the bench. The Counsel has now exceeded the time limit

12:03	Despite the noise of the storm outside the courtroom, Counsel 2 vehemently puts forward her arguments. However, she is immediately cut off by the bench with their line of inquiry
12:10	With her brow up, one of the judges seems displeased with the counsel’s explanation to her arguments. While the Counsel moves on to cite authorities to corroborate her next point, the judge drags the counsel back to her last point.
12:15	As little time remains, the Counsel speeds up to wrap up her arguments. With her time up, a request for an extension of time is made. Request is granted.
12:17	A further extension is asked for, in order to plead the next issue. However such a request has been denied and the Counsel has been asked to move to the prayer.
12:20	Before the Counsel for the informant begins with its rebuttals, the judges puts up a question regarding the powers and jurisdiction of the DG. The Counsel is given 2 minutes for her rebuttal which seems to pass by very quickly.

12:25	The counsel falters as she is consistently asked to wrap up. The Counsel for the opposite party now starts with answering the rebuttals posed. The same is done within the set time limit.
12:28	The preliminary round 1 has thus been declared over.

Court Room 15

10:30	The teams await the judges with excitement, there is definitely a presence of anxiety/nervousness in the court room.
10:53	the judges have arrived and the proceedings have started, Speaker 1 from petitioner greets the bench. The Bench asks the counsel to move directly to the statement of jurisdiction.
10:57	The panel questions the Speaker about the Raghavan Committee, which was cited by the Speaker as an authority for proving jurisdiction.
11:01	The bench asks the speaker to move to their argument for the first issue. The speaker cites the authority which has been questioned by the panel.
11:05	The speaker seems to have impressed the bench and has not failed to counter any question put forth by the bench.
11:09	The panel has inquiring the speaker regarding the cases mentioned in their written submission, the speaker ran out of time and was allotted 2 more minutes to conclude their arguments.
11:15	The second speaker has started his submission with calm. The speaker is asked about how predatory pricing is related to his third issue, which is handled by the speaker with a conviction as he cites relevant case laws.

11:19	The bench seems to be displeased with the speaker’s answers, and as the speaker tries to tackle the questions, the opposition’s counsel’s team is preparing to provide relevant rebuttals to arguments put forth by the petitioner side.
11:23	With just 2 minutes remaining, the second speaker is not just nervous but also asked to conclude his issue and move to next. The panel asks the counsel to cite relevant authorities.
11:26	The speaker was allotted 2-3 minutes but still failed to satisfy the panel and to cite relevant authorities. The speaker seems dissatisfied with his submission.
11:30	The Respondent Side starts their submission and the first speaker seems to have a confidence in their arguments. The speaker very successfully states the jurisdiction and moves to the submission relating to the first issue.
11:34	The speaker, even after a multiple rounds of rigorous questioning by the bench, has not let go of her argument.

11:39	The speaker is asked to provide their arguments relating to the their second issue. The speaker, with a faith in her argument deals with questions relating to facts and authorities cited.
11:43	Panel allots 2 minutes to the speaker to conclude her argument and cite more authorities, the respondent team hesitates in providing case laws but calmly deals with the issue and concludes the argument.
11:47	The second speaker starts his submission relating to the third and fourth issue, the speaker and the team do not falter in answering the questions.
11:53	The speaker is asked to provide authorities in relation to their third issue. The respondent seems to have a big difficulty as they cannot provide relevant sections.
11:56	Even after the hostile situation that the respondents are in, the speaker’s voice in not weakening.
11:59	The weather outside and the situation inside the courtroom for the respondent team both seem to be going bad, they yet again fail to give case laws that could act as authority to their argument.
12:01	The speaker is allotted a few more minutes to conclude his argument, and when asked by the bench to give the prayer without seeing, the speaker yet again disappoints the bench.

12:05	The first speaker from the petitioner side provides a bold rebuttal, and also deals with the questions from the bench.
12:07	There seems to be a deficiency in the respondent’s assertiveness when dealing with the rebuttal and the bench’s questions.
12:10	With the completion of rebuttals, the first preliminary rounds conclude.

Court Room 16

10:54	The honorable judges have arrived and with the competition about to commence, the court clerk takes a few moments to go over the rules and procedures one last time. The participants listen closely, eager to demonstrate their abilities and make a strong impression.
10:55	The first round of the Moot Court Competition is officially underway. Let’s see what these talented legal minds have in store for us today.
10:57	Speaker 1 of Team Hydrus is invited to present the case. The courtroom is silent as the counsel takes the floor to begin their presentation. They’ve indicated that they will start by laying out the key facts that led to this legal dispute.
10:58	The judge has interrupted the counsel to seek clarification on a key issue in the case. Everyone is paying close attention to this crucial moment
11:00	The speaker has started with his first submission by providing a compelling overview of legal provisions that support his position. The courtroom is now fully engaged and focused on the presentation.
11:02	The judge has posed a question to the informant, who has paused their presentation to respond. The courtroom is focused on their exchange
11:03	The judge has expressed doubts about the counsel’s argument and has requested more information. The courtroom is now abuzz with discussion.
11:04	The Speaker is asked to proceed with the first issue but as he proceeds, the line of questioning continues.
11:08	The clock is ticking and the tension builds as the court clerk presses the buzzer.
11:10	The Judge has expressed doubts about the speaker’s answer to their question, indicating that it is not satisfactory. The courtroom is now tense as everyone waits to see how the counsel will respond to this setback.
11:12	The time is up but the Speaker is relieved to hear that the judges have granted a time extension, allowing him to fully present his case. The speaker takes advantage of the extra time, making a strong argument and leaving a lasting impression on the judge.
11:15	The speaker faces a series of pointed questions from the judges, who challenge the strength of his argument. His answer did not meet the judges’ expectations, and they are now seeking a more convincing argument. They ask follow-up questions in an effort to gain further insight.

11:19	The judges’ questions have brought a new intensity to the courtroom. All eyes are on the speaker as he is pushed to his limits, trying to answer each query with confidence.
11:22	It’s clear that the judges’ persistent questioning is starting to wear down the speaker, who is now stumbling over his words and struggling to keep up.
11:24	The judges urge the speaker to continue with his argument, which he picks up without missing a beat.
11:26	The judges continue to fire off questions at the speaker and seek answer in bullet points due to paucity of time.
11:28	As the speaker approaches the end of their argument, the court clerk presses the buzzer to remind him that time is running out.
11:30	In an effort to move the proceedings along, the judges politely request the speaker to wrap up his argument on the current issue and move on to the next one.
11:31	The judges continue to scrutinize the arguments put forth by the speaker. One of the judges interrupts him and asks for a case law that supports his argument. The speaker quickly pulls out the relevant case law and reads out the relevant portions to the judges.
11:33	The court clerk’s buzzer interrupts his argument, signaling that his time has come to an end. However, the judges’ questions come one after the other, challenging his argument from multiple angles.
11:35	The second speaker for the informants takes the floor and commences his speech by first thanking the judges for their time and attention. He then proceeds to explain the structure of his argument, outlining the key points he intends to make and the order in which he plans to present them.
11:37	As the speaker was citing a case law to support his argument, one of the judges seemed to have a doubt about the relevance of the case law. The judge seeked clarification and the speaker paused for a moment to gather his thoughts and then confidently explained the connection between the case law and the present case.
11:39	The speaker’s answer seems to have left the judges unconvinced. They press for more information, hoping to elicit a more compelling argument.
11:41	The courtroom remains quiet and focused as the speaker delivers his arguments. The judges maintain a serious and attentive demeanor, interjecting with questions to further explore the nuances of the case.

11:43	The line of questioning seems unending. The judges continue to press for further clarification and ask for more case laws to support the speaker’s position. The tension in the courtroom is palpable as the speaker struggles to keep up with the barrage of questions.
11:45	As the questioning seemed to be unending, the judge finally asked the speaker to proceed with his next submission. He supported his argument with various facts, drawing the judge’s attention to specific details and provisions of the law.
11:48	Despite the intense grilling by the judges, the speaker remains composed and confident, delivering his submissions with clarity and precision. The courtroom is filled with an air of intensity and focus as everyone watched and listened intently.
11:49	As the speaker submits his argument, the judges appear to be in disagreement with his line of reasoning. The judge presses on, asking for more evidence to support his arguement.
11:53	The buzzer goes off, indicating the end of alloted time. However, the judges seem to be engrossed in the arguements put forward by the speaker and ask him to continue with his submission.
11:57	The judges request the speaker to be crisp and concise and summarise his final arguement within 2 minutes.
12:00	The judges are not satisfied with the speaker’s arguement and keep bombarding him with a flurry of questions.
12:02	Speaker 2 wraps up his speech and judges request the opposite party to proceed.
12:03	The other team has begun their argument and it seems the first speaker is quite nervous. She is fumbling and struggling to articulate her points clearly.

12:05	As is customary, the learned judges interject and pose questions to the speaker, seeking to clarify the merits of her arguement. The atmosphere in the courtroom is tense yet exciting as the speaker attempts to answer the probing questions with confidence and clarity.
12:09	The court clerk’s buzzer goes off, signalling that only 5 minutes left for the speaker to conclude her argument.
12:11	The judges seem to be frustrated with the lack of detail provided by the speaker. They continue to question, hoping to extract more information from the speaker.
12:13	Realising that time is limited, the judges ask the speaker to expedite her arguments and wrap up within few minutes.
12:15	The judge’s inquiries appear to be quite challenging and the speaker is having difficulty responding to them with clarity. It remains to be seen how she will handle the pressure and respond to further questions.
12:18	Time’s up but the judges have granted a momentary reprieve to the speaker, allowing her to complete her submissions in brief.
12:22	The speaker proceeds by presenting issue 2 and one of the judges seek clarification regarding relevance of a case law cited by her.
12:23	As the court clerk presses the buzzer indicating end of extended time, the judge’s relentless questioning leaves them unsatisfied with the speaker’s response.

12:34 PM	The reply to the rebuttal was interrupted the the judges followed by a series of questions, answered by the speaker confidently.
12:37 PM	The Participants are requested to step out of the courtroom for the due deliberation by the judges.

Court Room 17

10.52 AM	The judges arrived in the courtroom.
10.54 AM	The preliminary rounds have begun in the courtroom with the arrival of the competing teams and the respected judges.
10.56 AM	The judge intervenes and asks for various clarifications. The informant side of the teams started answering the questions in a confident manner.
10.58 AM	The honourable judges pose questions pertaining to the relevant facts to which the counsel seems to answer appropriately.
11.04 AM	Speaker 1 of Team Informant calmly yet firmly starts addressing his issues, elaborating his arguments with the appropriate emphasis on the important parts of the issues.
11.06 AM	The Judge interrupts the speaker as he moves on to his next point to ask a question.
11.10 AM	Judges then inquire about the minor facts, such as dates of the briefing and pertinent issues, before the speaker moves on to the second argument regarding the case.
11.12 AM	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.
11.16 AM	The bench puts forth another line of questioning based on the case’s statutory provisions and facts. Seemingly flustered with the continuous cross-questioning by the bench, the counsel attempts to answer the questions trying to make his stance clear.
11.17 AM	The judges asked the council to come up with the Second Issue.
11. 20 AM	The judge asks for clarification on a particular clause stated by the counsel relating to the Information Media 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.

11.22 AM	The judges were asked to proceed further with Speaker 1. 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.
11.25 AM	The judges put forth their respective questions and demand certain explanations based on the facts stated by him. With an apparent fall in his confidence, he goes on to answer the questions. However, the judges do not look completely satisfied with his shaky responses.
11.31 AM	The judge instructed the speaker to continue and then posed a few pertinent questions. Here, the speaker sought for a rephrasing of the questions since it appeared that the cross-question prevented him from understanding the original ones.
11.35 AM	He receives a “may” or “may not” inquiry from one of the judges. He responds to the inquiry, but his stance is not quite certain. Thus, judges are surprised by the responses.
11. 37 AM	The panel intimates that the speaker is out of time. Therefore, The speaker concludes the arguments with approval from the judges.
11.40 AM	The respondent teams start proceedings with the briefing of the facts of the case and other relevant information.

11.43 AM	The counsel is posed with a new line of questioning from the judges to which he tries his best to respond. After a few counter questions, the judges ask for relevant judicial decisions to which he pleads ignorance. Again judges asked for some relevance and he said the correct fact.
11.48 AM	The judges asked the council to provide relevant dates by saying ‘2021’ or ‘2022’. He replied in a confident manner by 2021.The judge,s emphasize on that.
11. 52 AM	The panel shows the time limit stating that only 10 minutes are left.
11.54 AM	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.
11.56 AM	The panel indicates that the speaker has run out of time, but the speaker is still being cross-examined by the court and making an effort to provide pertinent information.
12.00 AM	The council asked the judges to proceed further with the co-council, judges approved and the co-council proceed by stating the Issues and arguments of the relevant cases by giving the important landmark cases.
12.03 AM	The trespassing case is the subject of the arguments made by her co-counsel. She then cited the pertinent passages from the Competition Act. She is making an effort to relate the case to the facts.
12.06 AM	The judge points out a contradiction found in the memorial submitted and the arguments presented.

12.08 PM	The co-council began outlining the facts in a most fascinating manner by utilising examples such as coal and petroleum, which appear to be quite effective means of expressing the entire issue.
12.12 PM	The judge cross-questions by asking the relevancy, which the counsel manages to tackle well. The judge seems satisfied and asks for some elaboration. The council remains unaltered by this unexpected exchange.
12. 14 PM	The panel shows the time limit stating that only 2 minutes are left. The judges asked the co-council for the meaning of a company mentioned in the case. Therefore she proceeded to explain the whole provision.
12.16 PM	The co-counsel rushed towards the concluding points. The panels state that the time is up. The Co-Counsel appears to be extremely confident and the panel seems convinced by her contention.
12.20 PM	The co-council hastily concludes her remarks when the panel notes that their allotted time has passed.
12.22 PM	She is granted more time to continue her prayer. The judges asked the Main Council to proceed further with the Case.
12.25 PM	He concludes her address when the court clerk informs them that his allotted time has expired. The Court Clerk completes the first set of preliminary exams.

Court Room 18

10:57	The judges arrived in the courtroom and lifted the nerves of the participants while making light-hearted jokes regarding their unique team codes- “Hustlers” and “Kraken”
11:01	Preliminary rounds 1 begin with speaker 01 from informant team “hustlers” taking stage. He seeks permission from the judges to proceed with the facts. However, the judges ask him to proceed immediately to the issues
11:05	The speaker is asked by the bench to point out the paragraph in his memo he is referring to for his argument. The speaker seems fazed for a moment, but recovers and proceeds in a calm fashion.
11:07	The speaker seems to be losing his confidence and faltering in his presentation. The judge asks him to clarify his issue.
11:10	The counsel relies on various case laws to substantiate his argument. He also refers to the statutory provisions supporting his argument.
11:12	The judge questions the counsel on what would be the nature of the agreement according to him. He is not able to understand the judge’s line of questioning and seeks clarification. He argues that the agreement is anti-competitive in nature.
11:14	Speaker 01 ends his speech and the co-counsel takes the podium. She seeks the permission of the bench to continue with her issues.
11:17	Speaker 02 confidently and neatly presents her arguments and appropriately draws the attention of the bench towards the statutory provision she relies on.

11:19	The bench starts questioning the counsel and disagrees over a certain point of argument mentioned in their memo. She tries to justify her argument in an unperturbed manner. The bench seems satisfied with her answer.
11:24	The court clerk holds the placard declaring only 2 minutes left for speaker 02 to complete her speech. The judges continue to interject with questions at different points of her speech.
11:27	The time is up and she seeks permission from the bench to grant 2 minutes to finish the prayer. The judges approve the same. Before proceeding with the prayer, the judges continue to grill the speaker on her arguments.
11:32	The speaker answers their question without faltering in her speech. The honourable judge kindly advises the team to lay emphasis on a certain essential point in their arguments. She finally proceeds with the prayer.
11:35	The opposition party takes the podium and speaker 01 apprises the judges with the issues he and his co-counsel would respectively take up.
11:38	Speaker 02 proceeds with his arguments in a smooth manner and maintains constant eye contact with the judges. He lays appropriate emphasis on the key words in his speech.

11:41	The judges start to question the counsel. He is subjected to further questioning by the other judge and while he continues with his reply, the court clerk informs that he only has five minutes remaining to wind up with his arguments.
11:46	The judges are not completely mollified with his answer and expresses the same. However, he asks him to proceed with his presentation.
11:53	The last bell rings and the counsel seeks permission from the bench to wrap up his arguments. He is granted the same however, the judges ask him to be concise owing to the time constraint.
11:58	The court clerk asks the bench to wind up the round. Speaker 02 now takes the podium and cordially wishes the bench and seeks permission to proceed with his presentation.
12:02	As a storm brews outside the courtroom with high winds and heavy rainfall, another storm ensues inside the courtroom as speaker 02 points out to the lacunae in team Hustler’s arguments to substantiate his own issue.
12:03	A fresh round of questioning starts with both the judges cross-questioning the speaker at length.

12:07	The counsel seems to be in a tight spot when the judges are not satisfied with the analogy he used to answer their questions.
12:09	The rapid-fire questioning by the judges continues! The counsel seeks permission to answer their queries later on owing to the paucity of time.
12:13	The counsel seeks extension of time to wrap up his arguments and the judges readily agree while genially apologising for taking up his time with their continuous questioning.
12:18	The counsel seems to be having a hard day as the judges again interrupt him and continue with their questions. However, he tries his best to answer them without any loss of morale.
12:20	Speaker 02 finishes with his arguments. Rebuttal round starts, with speaker 02 of the Hustlers taking the stage.
12:22	Speaker 01 of Kraken starts with the surrebuttals, however, the learned judge surprisingly expresses that a certain essential fact of the proposition has not been addressed satisfactorily by either of the teams. Speaker 01 draws the attention of the bench towards a certain paragraph of his team’s memo to answer the same.
12:26	The first preliminary rounds finally wind up with the bench thanking the participants for their ardent efforts.

Preliminary Round 2

Court Room 1

13:10:00 PM	The judges’ arrival ends the participants’ wait, and the courtroom brims with a mix of nervousness and excitement. Anxious energy crackles in the air, and every movement and sound feels amplified as they wait for the judge’s next moment.
13:12:00 PM	As the judges take their seats and the proceedings begin, the tension in the courtroom ratchets up even further. Speaker 1 of the Informant side commences her submissions with the statement of jurisdiction. The bench asks the counsel to skip the facts, henceforth the counsel continues with the issues pertaining to the case.
13:15:00 PM	The judges nod along, their expressions betraying a sense of satisfaction as they listen to her carefully crafted submissions. The bench interrupts with their set of questions, testing the legal acumen and attentiveness of the counsel.
13:18:00 PM	Since the bench doesn’t look convinced, with a confident smile, the counsel assures the court that she will provide more comprehensive answers to the questions posed, in the later part of her submissions, earning a nod of approval from the judges.
13:23 PM	The judges’ expressions turn sour as they glance at the clock, which seems to be ticking louder by the second. Despite the counsel’s efforts, the judges appear to be searching for more substantial evidence to support the case.
13: 27 PM	The room falls silent as the judge picks apart the counsel’s case piece by piece, leaving the counsel scrambling for a convincing response. The tension in the room is palpable as the judge’s words hang in the air, leaving the counsel with a daunting task ahead.
13: 30 PM	The counsel answers confidently and the court master shows up with a time alert. The counsel gets an extension of 2 more minutes. The courtroom becomes a battleground of legal intricacies as the counsel skillfully weaves through the facts of the case and pleads for the relative application of the law.
13: 36 PM	Employing a deft use of vocal inflection, the counsel invites her co-counsel to join her in making a persuasive argument to the court. Speaker 2 of the Informant side takes up the dias and begins her legal argumentation.

13: 39 PM	As the speaker passionately presents her argument, the bench interrupts with questions that cut through the air. The speaker gracefully acknowledges the interruption and responds with eloquence, leaving the bench impressed with her convincing answers.
13:44 PM	The speaker’s arguments navigate through the intricacies of the case and skillfully address the bone of contention. With the precision of a surgeon, she cites persuasive cases that leave the bench in awe. The discourse gets shifted to the interpretation of the word, ‘Coercion’.
13:47 PM	The heart of the counsel swells with confidence as she goes with her arguments unchallenged from the bench.She continues to make her case with greater conviction, drawing upon persuasive cases and compelling evidence to support her position. The courtroom seems to hang on her every word, captivated by the force of her argument.
13: 51 PM	The courtroom falls into a moment of hushed silence as the informant side offers their prayer to the bench, however, the bench catches an intricacy making the side slightly falter. As the Opposite Party takes the dias, Speaker 1 begins his arguments with a confident and commanding presence, his voice ringing clear through the courtroom.
13:56 PM	The counsel’s persuasive use of relevant case laws and analogies captures the attention of the bench, leaving them convinced. Just as the momentum of the argument builds, a pointed question is posed, adding a new layer of complexity to the case.
13:59 PM	With the advancing arguments, the counsel faces the brunt of grilling. The judges listen intently, their faces reflecting their deep interest in the counsel’s response. The dialogue continues, each response met with a follow-up question, until a satisfactory conclusion is reached.
14:03 PM	The discussion becomes more nuanced, and the counsel’s hand gestures help to illustrate his points. The judge and the opposing counsel listen attentively, and the tension in the courtroom mounts as the argument unfolds. As the court master notifies the time, the bench asks the counsel to convince them.

Court Room 2

13:12	All the judges and the participants have arrived. Preliminary Round 2 starts. The court is in session.
13:14	Speaker 1 of team 01 starts his speech by first clarifying the structure of his arguments. The counsel moves on with his submission with the permission of the panel.
13:17	The counsel gets interrupted by the panel. He answers the question to which the panel seems satified.
13:19	The counsel gets continuously interrupted in his speech by the panel but this does not seem to shake his confidence.
13:23	The round of questioning by the panel does not seem to be ending anytime soon. The panel asks the counsel if he has any judgement or authority to support his argument to with the counsel responds in the affirmative and cites the judgement.
13:26	The court clerk reminds the judges and the counsel about the paucity of time.
13:27	The counsel moves on with his second submission. Before he could be done with his submission, the court clerk notifies that the time is up but the panel provides him with extended time and allows his to move on with his submission.
13:29	The counsel is again interrupted by the panel with a question to which he states that he would be dealing with it in his next submission.
13:31	The court clerk reminds the judges about the time constraints and the judges ask the counsel to finish his argument.

13:32	Speaker one concludes and speaker 2 takes the dais. With the permission of the panel the counsel proceeds his first issue.
13:34	The panel poses certain questions regarding the dominant position of Playflix in the market. The counsel cites certain judgements to support his position regarding the dominant position of Playflix.
13:38	The counsel moves on with his second argument.
13:40	The Panel poses the counsel with a certain question to which the counsel says that it is covered in his coming arguments and continues with his submission.
13:44	The Court clerk reminds everyone that the time is up and so the counsel concludes his argument but in the middle he is again interrupted by the panel. The counsel answer the question and with this the submission by team 01 ends.
13:47	Speaker 01 of Team 02 takes the stage and clarifies the structure of her arguments. After being asked by the panel she makes it clear that they would be representing Playflix as a client.
13:48	The counsel starts her arguments after taking permission from the panel.
13:54	The panel asks the counsel to proceed with the second issue. The counsel asks permission to state one more argument relating to the first issue which the panel allows.
13:55	The counsel moves on with her next submission and continues it with minor interruptions by the panel. But the clock is tciking fast, as the court clerk reminds the speaker of the paucity of time.
14:00	The court clerk notifies that the time is over. But it seem like the judges are not in the mood to end their round of questions. But after the answers, the counsel concludes her arguments.

14:02	Speaker 02 from team 02 takes the stage and states the issues that she would be dealing with before proceeding with the arguments.
14:06	The counsel gets asked questions regarding the dominant position of the party and the market share it deals with. The counsel answers the question and proceeds with her submission. To support her position regarding the dominant position of the party the counsel cites various judgements.
14:09	The panel does not seem to be satisfied with the answers given by the counsel and is cross questioning her.
14:12	The counsel comes to her final submission. The court clerk reminds of the paucity of time. But the counsel gets interrupted again by the panel regarding the market share of the party.
14:15	The court clerk notifies that the time is up. The counsel requests for 1 minute to conclude her arguments and the panel awards her 30 seconds.
14:16	The counsel concludes her arguments and with this the arguments from both of the sides gets over and the rebuttal starts.
14:16	With the permission of the panel speaker from team 01 starts with his rebuttals when reminded that the time is up he asks for a little time and winds up the rebuttal.
14:18	The Speaker from Team 02 starts with her rebuttals.
14:19	The rebuttals from both of the sides are over. The judges conclude the session and the preliminary round 2 has come to an end.

Court Room 3

13.14	The judges have arrived, and informant begins by presenting arguments directly.
13.18	Judges seem a little dissatisfied and asks for clarification, but alas they had no answer. Judges futher asks them to continue with the issue.
13.21	Judges again interrupt the speaker midst her speech, the proceeding seeming a little monotonous now, with the judges’ expression saying it all.
13.26	Speaker 1 goes on to present the issues futher before the bench, court clerks showing placards for the limited time that speaker has.
13.29	Speaker 1 patiently tries to answer the questions and cites cases to back her aguments and now she has started to explain the specific provisions of law involved in the case.
13.33	Judges and counsel ignoring the court clerk’s placard showing “times up”. Speaker 1 has been given enough time and is finally done with her submission before the bench.

13.37	With a little stress, now we have on the podium, our speaker 2. He substanstiates the issue by giving real time illustrations of Microsoft and Windows.
13.41	The second speaker cites the case of Sonam Sharma v. Apple , but judges not agreeing to the same. But the thunder outside has calmed down and so has the situation of this courtroom.
13.44	The speaker and judges patiently discussing the issue, and are not really concerned about the timings, no heat, no tough arguments. The situation seems to be as cool as the weather outside.
13.51	The bench asks the counsel to further proceed with issues, but alas! The lack of time is out to get her and now, she has to proceed with the prayer directly.
13.54	Speaker 1 from opposition party comes, and the moment she starts the judge interupts and asks to be addressed as ladyship and not lordship.

13.57	Speaker 1 confidently presents her arguments, but the judges seem a little disappointed and continue to ask a lot of questions but speaker somehow tries to convince them with her arguments.
14.02	The speaker seems a little baffaled and after gathering her confidence, continues to answer the judges. Her submisssion haven’t been finished, and court clerks are again reminding her of the lack of time.
14.06	The speaker futher on, continues with her speech but judges have yet again interupted her to check the facts of the case. With a smile on her face she’s confidently dealing with the questions.
14.09	Judges seem a little pleased, just like the weather outside, and gave a 2 minute extension of time to the speaker.
14.13	And here comes our Speaker 2, with the situation now heating up a little bit, she is facing too many questions from the moment she intiated her speech.
14.18	Speaker 2, continues to present her arguments and backs it with relevant cases, and starts to explain about the market share and assets of Playflix.
14.22	Counsel pleads ignorance when asked upon the specific details about relavant cases, and continues to present her contention.
14.26	Judges interrupt her speech and she tries to explain about the subscription costs of other platforms to substatiate her contention. Furthermore she cited a case, to which honourable judges refused to accept in the present case.
14.28	The counsel completes by presenting the final submissions before the honourable bench and suddenly the judges further bombard her with one more question.
14.32	Here the rebuttals conclude, and thus the whole proceeding with the judges giving a very insightful feedback to both the co counsels.

Court Room 4

13:13	The judges arrive and make themselves comfortable and ready to start the competetion. Speaker from the informant party seeks permission to start, which the judges grant.
13:14	Speaker 1 from the informant party starts reading and stating facts of the case with great description, and then seeks permission to start with the arguments. the judge questions him whether the case is still under investigation or completed. looks like the judges are going to grill the participants hard!
13:17	Speaker 1 from the informant party starts with his arguments. Not even 5 minutes have passed since he has started speaking and the judges have already started cross questioning him! On the top of that, the speaker has only 10 minutes left. However, the race of time seems to have no effect on his confidence!
13:22	Speaker seems to handle the situation well as he successfully answers the questions thrown at him by the judges by relating the case with respective judgements. However he fails to satisfy the questions of the judges and is chastised by them as he attempted to mislead them.
13:29	With his grounds shaken and nervous, the speaker is left with 2 minuts in his hand. The judges are still not satisfied with his arguments and continue to question him rigorously.

13:32	Speaker 2 from the informant party takes the lead. He states strong arguments in a confident voice but is left with 10 minutes in his hand, and with that the judges have started cross questioning him.
13:36	The judges have gotten hold over the speaker, interupting him again and again. The ground of the competition is getting fierce, as it becomes difficult for the speaker to properly support his argument. With shaky hands, he tries to support his argument, all going in vain.
13:41	The speaker has made a come back with his arguments as well in confidence, as the judges start to cool down a bit. With this, the speaker is left with 2 minutes in his hand.
13:45	Speaker 2 is out of time and arguments all together, as he gets stuck at a point and is left baffled. The judges ask the speaker to continue with his remaining content and arguments.

13:48	Speaker 2 concludes with his arguments from the informant party.
13:50	Speaker 1 from the opposite party commences with her arguments and asks for the permission of the judges for the same.
13:51	Just like the previous team, the judges start cross questioning her. The judges end up proving her argument arbitrary, shaking the base of her arguments.
13:56	The counsel is left speechless and bewildered as the judges ask the counsel to explain her arguments. The judges don’t question her further and she continues with her arguments.
13:58	A few moments of relief for the speaker as the judges remain silent and don’t interrupt. But this ends and she is thrown with series of questions back to her which she ends up handling prudently.
14:01	The court clerk informs the counsel that she has no time left. Yet, she is thrown with individual questions back to back by both of the judges. This does not seem to effect the confidence of the speaker, yet.
14:03	The court clerk again informs the counsel of the time, and the judges let the speaker complete her arguments.
14:05	Speaker 2 takes the lead. Speaker has a look of nervousness but a voice of confidence in her speech. The competetion is getting engrossing with every argument of the speaker.
14:07	The judges ask the speaker to re-state her facts as they found disparities in them. Speaker apologizes for the inconvinience caused and continues to prove her arguments.With this, she has 10 minutes left in her hand!
14:15	The judges start grilling the participant again, but the speaker handles the situation very well. One of the judges seems satisfied with her arguments. Gaining an edge over the informant party, she has 5 minutes left.
14:17	Due to the paucity of time, the speaker has to summarise her arguments, which she briefs about to the judges. She has 2 minutes left in her hand. A matter of skill, can she complete on time?
14:21	The counsel concludes their content with a strong argument.
14:22	Speaker 1 of the informant party takes the lead and project their arguments against the opposite party. However, he is yet again cross questioned by the judges. Although he answers them, no one knows if the judges are pleased or not. The judge even calls out the informant party for making additional submissions.
14:25	Speaker 1 of the opposite party crosses out the arguments of the informant party with her arguments.
14:26	With this, the preliminary round 2 comes to a conclusion.

Court Room 5

13:10	The second preliminary round beings with much awaited anticipation
13:11	The counsel from the informant side seeks clarification as to the knowledge of the facts of the case with the panel of judges. The panel immediately begins with question of jurisdiction.
13:12	While trying to engage the judges, the counsel is met with further questions. Satisfied with the contention made, the panel allows the counsel to proceed further.
13:14	The counsel confidently presents his contention. The panel seeks the relevance of Rule 5 under The competition Commission Act.
13:16	The panel puts emphasis on one particular question with respect to Rule 5A of the Act and continues to grill the counsel. The counsel seeks permission to refer to Rule 5A in order to satisfy the judges. The judges requests the counsel to proceed quickly without wasting the time of the informant team
13:18	The panel seems determined to test the knowledge and advocacy skills of the counsel, however, the counsel is miserably struggling to prove his contention.
13:20	The counsel is met with a series of challenging questions and repeatedly fails to substantiate his arguments. The panel reminds the counsel of the time allotted to argue
13:22	The questioning continues and the dissatisfaction of the judges rises. The counsel’s arguments fall weak against the questions posed by the panel.
13:23	The confidence of the counsel seems shaken after the series of questions posed by the judges. The time limit approaches yet the counsel is completely unable to prove his contention.
13:26	The counsel is requested to wrap it up within 25 seconds. A further extension of 15 seconds is requested by the counsel which is allowed by the panel.
13:28	The co-counsel approaches the dias to deal with the remaining issues. The co-counsel begins with her contention with confidence but is interrupted by a question related to the anti-competiveness of a collaborative arrangement under section 3 of the Competition Act.
13:31	The co-counsel helplessly tries to deal with the question but remains clueless. The panel further seeks clarification of a distinction between section 3(3) and section3(4) of the CCA.
13:34	The dissatisfaction of the panel elevates as the co-counsel is unable to deal with the basic questions posed by the panel. The clock ticks and the struggle continues.
13:36	The courtroom is struck with silence and the panel asks the co-counsel to move with the issues remaining. The grilling becomes intense and the panel continues to test the knowledge of the co counsel.
13:39	As the informant party is running out of time so are they running out of strong arguments to back up their contention.

13:41	The panel allows an extension of a minute, however, the co-counsel miserably fails to prove her contention and is compelled to move toward the prayer.
13:43	As the informant stepped down from the dias the counsel from the opposite party requests the panel to approach the dias.
13:44	The panel asks about the scope of section 19 of the Competition Commission Act. The counsel is successfully able to deal with the question. The panel poses the same question of jurisdiction to the counsel.
13:47	The counsel rummages through their documents after being asked to read section 5 of the Act. The question of jurisdiction still remains unanswered.
13:49	The panel is ready with the most baffling questions which end up shaking the confidence of the counsel. Although the questions are met with reasoning and sufficient arguments, yet the judges continue the series of questions determined to find the answer they are seeking.
13:53	The knowledgeable judges possessing legal acumen ask the counsel to prove the relation between the given issue with the current trend which leaves the counsel speechless.
13:56	The proceeding becomes even more interesting as the heat in the room rises along with the increasing number of questions.
13:59	The counsel is asked the most basic question as to who is a consumer under the CCA. The panel allows an extension of 30 seconds which is unsuccessfully wasted by the counsel as the judges are still unsatisfied with the arguments presented.
14:02	The co-counsel from the opposite party approaches the dias.

14:04	The co-counsel gracefully deals with the questions posed by the panel and acts as a ray of hope for the opposite party. The panel seems more convinced with the co counsel’s arguments.
14:07	The co-counsel continues to hold the attention of the panel as the judges listen intently. The researcher. in all her ability to try and help the co counsel, continues to pass notes.
14:11	The paucity of time is no barrier to the panel’s intention of grilling the co-counsel as every argument is followed by a question.
14:13	The panel seeks alternative suggestions to the issue at hand and what the co counsel proposes to deal with it. The panel also asks the co counsel to wrap up quickly to leave time for the prayer.
14:17	The co-counsel ends with the prayer and clarifies that counsels would be duty-bound for every pray. The informant proceeds with the rebuttal
14:19	The opposite party further moves with their own rebuttal and proves that the question of abuse of dominance as posed by the informant does not arise.
14:22	The proceedings for the second preliminary round end and the parties are requested to leave the courtroom.

Court Room 6

12:51	Both teams have arrived in the courtroom, and are awaiting the arrival of the judges. An undercurrent of anxious excitement fills the room.
12:54	The court clerk uses the time before the arrival of the judges to brief the teams about the rules of the Preliminary rounds.
13:01	The teams rush through the last-minute preparations to ensure a steady footing in this round.
13:10	Both the Judges have arrived and are going through the documents. The court clerks ask the Judges for the permission to begin the rounds. The permission is duly granted.
13:11	The Counsel No. 1of the Informant Team seeked permission from the Judges to begin with their arguments. The judges request the Cousel to skip the the Facts.
13:13	The Judges have asked the Counsel No.2 to proceed before Counsel No.1, as Counsel No. 2 deals with the first issue.
13:14	The Counsel No.2 begins his argumentation, however he is interupted by the judges, inquiring about the jurisdiction of the case. The Counsel seems flustered.
13:15	The counsel is permitted to continue, despite some apprehension on the part of the judges. he continues with his argumentation, and both the judges listen with rapt attention.
13:17	The judge questions the speaker on the authority or lack thereof stated by them in their Memorandum. The second judge further cross-questions the counsel. The counsel seems confident in his answers and is assisted by the researcher.
13:20	The intense weather outside is mirrored by the intense flurry of questions posited by the judges to the speaker.
13:21	The court clerk lets the courtroom know that the speaker has only 5 minutes left to conclude. However, the judges persist in questioning and cross-questioning the speaker to allow him to substantiate his argument.
13:23	The speaker at the 11 minute mark begins with his second issue, the third issue presented in the memorandum.
13:24	The judges question the speaker and the team about their memorandum, and ask the speaker to refer to the facts from the Memorandum.
13:26	Despite, his time running up the judges continue questioning the speaker.
13:28	The speaker continues answering the questions posed by the judges, unperturbed by the questions. The cross-questioning however continues on by the judges, as they delve deeper into the legal questions that are presented in the issues.
13:31	The speaker concludes and satisfactorily answers the questions by the judges.
13:31	The second speaker approaches the dias and is interrupted immediately after beginning. The question perplexes the speaker who asks for permission to request assistance from the Researcher.
13:34	The researcher is allowed to assist the speaker and the speaker is requested to continue on. She elucidates her point by referring to the proposition.
13:35	The court room stills a bit, due to a delay on the speaker’s part. The judge reminds her that her time is still running.
13:37	The judge asks the speaker to define the term ‘Dominant” as used by her. The speaker highlights the term by citing some cases directly from her Memorandum.
13:39	The judges continue to enquire the speaker about the jurisdiction of the body deciding the case. The judges ask the speaker for any Supreme Court Case to substantiate her arguments.

13:41	The Judges ask the speaker to prove the argument of dominance made by them. The speaker answers that she would do so by substantiating her current argument with her upcoming arguments.
13:43	The judges inquire the speaker, testing her thoroughness with the facts of the moot propositions and her critical thinking regarding the same.
13:44	The court clerk signals the end of time, the speaker asks for an extension, the judges unsatisfied and demanding more from the speaker allow the extension.
13:45	The judges ask the speaker to substantiate her arguments with merely two strong arguments and prove the arguments. The speaker attempts to answer but the judges seem dissatisfied.
13:47	The speaker asks permission to continue her argumentation, but this is denied due to a paucity of time, and is directly asked to begin with the prayer.
13:49	The team stands up for the prayer, the judges question her regarding her prayer and our satisfied by the speakers answer.
13:50	The counsel of the Opposite Party moves to the dias and begins with her argumentation. The speaker is confident and assured in her tone and body language.
13:51	A mere 60 seconds into her speech, the speaker is questioned by the judges regarding the current and prior laws.
13:52	The judges begin by assessing the speaker’s thoroughness with the facts of the proposition. The speaker stumbles over a words a bit but quickly rebounds and begins answering the question.
13:55	The speaker proceeds forth with her next issue which is the fourth issue from the team. The judges seem perplexed by the order of the issues tackled by speakers from both teams.
13:57	The speaker uses case laws to substantiate her points and is enquired about another case titled “The WhatsApp Case” mentioned by the team in their Memorandum by the Judges.
13:58	The speaker presents a rebuttal of the Informant party’s counsel and does so with case law, but is questioned by the Judges with a question of Fact.
14:02	The speaker is unable to answer a question by the Judges and is asked to continue forth. The judges ask the speaker about their pleading.
14:04	The speaker answers the query by presenting arguments and statements of jurisdiction stated in their Memorandum.
14:06	The judges see through the argument and remain unsatisfied, the speaker replies that the issue would be better dealt by the next speaker from their team.

14:07	Speaker 02 comes to the dias and is asked a question, to answer which the speaker asks for assistance from the Researcher, who satisfactorily helps the speaker in answering the question.
14:09	The speaker is asked to directly begin from the point which the previous speaker could not answer to the satisfaction of the judges.
14:10	The Judges continue to thoroughly question the Speaker, which he matches with a cool calmness mirroring the rainy atmosphere beyond the courtroom.
14:13	The speaker moves forth with his argumentation, directing efforts to answer the questions posited by the judges.
14:14	The speaker reiterates points made by his co-counsel. The court clerk lets the speaker know that he has 5 minutes of the alloted time left.
14:16	The argumentation moves forth with the speaker presenting his defense to answer the queries made by the judges.
14:17	The intense questioning by the judges continues, while cool wind flows into the room, the heat of the argumentation in the courtroom continues to rise.
14:20	The court clerk signals the end of the time, the speaker continues to answer the questions posited by the speaker.
14:22	The judges continue forth with questioning the speaker, who requests for more time to present his arguments. The permission is duly granted.
14:24	The researcher is again called upon to help the speaker. The judges also ask the speaker to concisely wrap up his argumentation.
14:25	The speaker finishes his argumentation and his asked a few final questions by the judges to clarify the stance of the team.
14:26	The judges put forth a question to both teams, which the researchers are asked to research upon. The informant team attempts to answer.
14:27	The judges ask the speaker to move to the prayer and another general question is posed to both teams.
14:28	The speaker moves to the prayer. The judge poses a last question to the Opposite Party.
14:30	The judge seems a bit taken aback by the answer offered by the speaker, and with this the speaker concludes.
14:31	The rebuttals begin. The counsel from the informant party moves to the dias for the rebuttals.
14:32	The rebuttals of the speaker stem from the moot proposition in an attempt to challenge the issues raised by the Opposite Party.
14:35	The speaker meticulously attempts to rebut each issue and concludes the rebuttals for their side.
14:36	Counsel for the Opposite team moves to the dias to begin the rebuttals from his team.
14:38	The speaker presents data to substantiate his stance and rebut the Informant team.
14:39	The round ends and the participants are requested to depart from the room to allow the judges to deliberate in confidence.

Court Room 7

13:11	Both the parties have taken their position inside the courtroom. The judges panel has also arrived.
13:14	The first speaker from the Informant side asks the permission to approach the dias and starts with her arguments. The permission for the same has been granted by the honourable bench.
13:17	The counsel commences with her statements of facts without facing any interruptions from the honourable bench. The counsel asks the permission to proceed further with their issue; permission for the same has been granted by the judges.
13:20	One of the judges asks a clarification from the counsel regarding her stated issue. The counsel confidently clarified the same. One of the judges asks about the type of overlapping happened in this case.
13:25	The judges asks the counsel to substantiate one of her arguments regarding the voidability of the acquisition. The counsel tries to answer the same, but the bench seems dissatisfied.
13:30	The counsel successfully answers the honourable bench with some amount of success. One of the judges asks one question which puts the counsel in little bit of confusion.
13:35	The counsel seeks permission to conclude her arguments if they have not any further question. The permission for the same has been granted by the honourable bench. The second apeaker from the Informant side commences with her arguments.
13:39	The bench does not seem satisfied with the points put forth by the counsel to establish her issue. The bench ask the counsel if they are able to substantiate her argument with any case laws.

13:43	The judges seems dissatisfied with the reply of the counsel, but due to paucity of time, ask her to proceed further with the next issue.
13:47	The counsel put forth one of the doctrine of United Nations to substantiate her arguments. The counsel asks the bench move ahead if they have not any question to ask; permission for the same has been granted.
13:51	Due to time constraint, the counsel has to conclude her arguments quickly and recites her prayer. The first speaker from the opposite party gets the permission to approach the dias, and moves with her arguments.
13:56	The counsel is commencing with her arguments and replies very convincingly. The counsel cites a case law to substantiate her arguments, but the judges puts forth an analogy which puts the counsel in little hesitancy.
14:00	The panel questions the bad effect on the producer market due to 20% share of one of the dominant companies in the market. The opponent counsel tries to defend the same with a little success.
14:06	Due to paucity of time, the honourable bench allows the counsel to move ahead with her next argument. The time limit for the first speaker gets finished. The counsel asks for extra time which is graciously granted by the honourable judges.

14:09	The first speaker from opponent side concludes with her submission. The second speaker asks for permission to approach the dias and to present his argument; the permission for the same has been granted by the judges.
14:15	The counsel while presenting his arguments asks the judges to refer the paragraph 36 of the memorial. The counsel presented a situation of 1986 to answer the question puts forth by the judges, but the panel expresses their dissatifaction by stating that ” how a 1986 situation is still relevant in 2020″.
14:19	Due to time limit, the counsel is being allowed to move to issue 3. The counsel is pleading one arrangement as not being in a vertical arrangement, but the honourable panel is shows its dissatisfaction to agree to the same.
14:23	The time of the second speaker gets over, and he concludes his argument. The panel gave a very insightful advice about the court etiquette to both the parties that the whole team has to stand when the prayer is being recited.
14:27	The panel provides certain remarks to both the parties. And that’s how the preliminary round 2 is completed.

Court Room 8

13.11	The honourable judges and participants enter the room. There is vehement excitement and anticipation in the room and a competitive spirit that is hard to miss.
13.13	The counsel of the informant team asks for permission to begin. Keeping it quick, she skips the statement of facts and lays down the structure of her speech.
13.14	The counsel is taken aback from a question posed to her at the very start and tries to answer the question directing the bench to particulars in the memorial. The bench seems dissatisfied as a few more questions follow. Talk about a rocky start!
13.15	The panel demands to know the definition of ‘competitive’ from the speaker. She seems to be holding her stand but the panel still seems somewhat dissatisfied.
13.16	The honourable judge points out a logical loophole in the counsel’s argument. Trying to steer the boat the right way, she refers them back to the facts and figures from the memorial again. Is the boat going to make it throughout the storm? Only time will tell.
13.19	The panel continues to grill the nervous counsel over the issue of rights of contracting parties. The already flustered speaker is unable to cope up from the continuous bombarding of questions. The panel directs the speaker to continue with further arguments.
13.22	The esteemed judge demands the speaker to back her arguments with evidence, which she attempts and fails at as the judge does not seem impressed. The informant team is all nervous faces now.
13.25	The court clerk rings the bell indicating the speech time to be exhausted. The speaker is allowed to continue with her arguments.
13.27	As the panel continues grilling the speaker over the legal particularities, the counsel attempts to answer the esteemed judges steadfastly.
13.29	The co-counsel seeks permission from the panel to begin her arguments, furthering thr arguments of her counsel.
13.31	But Behold! As the speaker just begins with her half of the arguments the eagle-eyed panel points out a legal error in her statement. The damage seems irrecoverable!
13.33	The rocky waters do not seem to calm down for the team as the panel points out a factual innacuracy in the speaker’s argument. She fails to defend her statement and admits to the same.
13.35	As the room witnesses the constant back and forth between the panel and the speaker, the time constraint bell only adds up to the tension.

13.37	The panel demands to know a legal precedent from the speaker to substantially back her arguments. She does name a landmark judgement but the efforts go down the drain as the honourable judge effectively establishes that there exists no relevance of the precedent offered.
13.39	The speaker keeps a strong front as she defends her case from the grilling. Whether the front will fall or stand by the end of the round shall be a sight to see.
13.41	The already flustered speaker’s confidence seems to take a dip as the ring signifying the end of allotted time is heard. The panel directs the speaker to be concise and wrap up her speech quickly.
13.44	The co-counsel presents her earnest prayers and concludes her speech. The opposite party now takes the baton in it’s hand to argue the case.
13.48	A good start could have been attributed to the counsel but she is found without words when posed with a factual question from the esteemed judge. the team offers her the relevant documents, clearly demonstrating a great team coordination.
13.51	Taking small steps, the counsel attempts to build back both her case and her confidence. The panel poses a few questions, which she seemed to have answered satisfactorily.
13.54	The counsel reads out an extensive provision to defend her position but the same doesn’t satisfy the judges as they ask her to offer more substantive evidence when given the oppurtunity. Calling the competition cut-throat won’t be any exaggeration.
13.55	The speaker seems to have satisfied the panel with her concluding argument and is permitted to continue with her arguments. Relief is apparent on the team’s face.
13.56	As the skies were beginning to clear for the counsel, she is reminded of the slipping time and directed to be quick with her arguments. The counsel now rushed, attempts to present her best case. Such is the spirit of competition!

13.59	The court clerk reminds the room of the exhaustion of the extended time and the counsel promptly concludes her speech.
14.02	The weight of defending the case resting on the co-counsel’s shoulders, he lays out an efficient structure for his arguments and begins firmly.
14.04	The panel questions the co-counsel about a commission mentioned in the team’s memorial. The speaker is making a blunder, and fails to answer for the same and his team attempts to help through the passing of chits. The same is criticized by the esteemed judge. The tension is palpable now.
14.07	With an apparent faltered confidence, the co-counsel attempts to build back his case but such steps are thwarted by the constant line of questions posed by the panel.
14.11	The esteemed judge points out a contradiction among the counsel and co-counsel’s approaches as there is reptition of irrelevant information by the co-counsel. The speaker apologises and attempts to continue with the arguments but seems to be digging a deeper hole for himself as the panel seems dissatisfied.
14.13	Taking blows after blows, the opposite party’s attempt to defend their case seems to be a lost cause. The co-counsel is rendered without answers and the ring of the bell indicating the end of time only adds to the woes.
14.17	Surprising the participants, spectators and speaker alike, the esteemed judge asks the co-counsel to state his contentions without referring to his written speech. The co-counsel seemingly accepting defeat, stays mum.
14.18	The counsel from the informant party now comes to the dais to offer her counter-arguements.
14.21	She offers concise and crisp rebuttals which are appreciated by the esteemed panel.
14.21	The counsel from the opposite party now comes up to the centre stage and tries to make good of the damage by offering solid counter arguments. The end of her speech also marks the end of preliminary Round 2.
14.23	The judges graciously offer their valuable feedbacks and term the round as complete.

14:26 PM	The informant fiercely presented her one-minute rebuttal, engaging in a heated discussion with the bench, her arguments precise and impassioned.
14:28 PM	The opposing party delivered a fitting reply, pointing out flaws in the informant’s rebuttal, hence the second preliminary round concludes.

Court Room 9

13:08	After the rain, the serene atmosphere at HNLU and the courtroom is about to become thrilling as the judges arrive and the second preliminary round is set to begin.
13:11	The teams are biting their nails as the Ladyship begins to read the proposition.
13:13	The courtroom is filled with shrillness as the counsel from team Napoleons approaches the dais.
13:16	The counsel represents the informant party and is dealing with issues 2 and 3. Nervousness can be seen on the face of the counsel as he proceeds with his arguments.
13:19	The learned counsel seems thorough with his speech as he does not even require a glance at it. The Honorable bench posed a query on the connotations mentioned in his speech.
13:21	The counsel is assertive in his answers and the bench seems satisfied with his advancements for now.
13:24	As the bell rings, the counsel is left with only five minutes for his speech. Among the thrills, the bench has started firing a series of questions upon the counsel.
13:28	The bench has cornered the counsel with a careless contradiction made by him in his own speech. The counsel is struggling with paucity of time as he proceeds with his structured arguments.
13:29	The panel directs the counsel to provide relevant precedents for his contention. The counsel was successful in providing a case as the time for his speech ends.
13:30	The counsel maintains his cool and seeks an extension. The anxiety produced by the time-out causes him to make a mistake in his speech which was not left unnoticed by the judges.
13:32	The two-minute extension elapses as the co-counsel takes over the dais. The co-counsel summarises the arguments of the first speaker.

13:38	The tranquility in the proposals of the counsel seems to be convincing the bench beyond any doubt.
13:41	The clerks alert the counsel and with only five minutes remaining, the counsel hurries with his speech. As he proceeds, he is interrupted by the judges along the lines of reasonability of the issue.
13:45	The unending lines of questions do not throw the counsel off his equilibrium. He appears confident and well acquainted with the facts.
13:48	The counsel attempted to avoid a query regarding a legal provision in order to complete his submission, but the learned bench did not allow it and with that the time of his speech comes to an end.
13:50	The counsel requests a two-minute extension. The counsel possesses an overwhelming amount of facts but the paucity of time leads to the dismissal.
13:51	Team Napoleons rises from its seat as the counsel recites the prayer before the Honourable court.
13:53	Speaker from Team Centaur is granted permission to approach the dais.
13:55	The counsel representing the respondents submits the time duration she would require to complete her submission.
13:57	The speaker substantiates her arguments with a series of provisions and explains how the acquisition mentioned in the proposition is legally valid.
13:59	The sense of competitiveness rises as each team has prepared their cases extensively, showcasing their legal reasoning and presentation skills.
14:02	The counsel is interceded by the bench with a line of relevant questions that do not seem to surprise the counsel. She is calm in her exchange with the bench.
14:04	Bell rings and the time of her speech comes to an end. It seem to throw her off from her coolness and she abruptly asks for extension.

14:05	The speaker attempts to tackle the posed questions swiftly in order to complete her arguments. It did not go unnoticed by the bench and they make the situation uneasy for the respondent party by challenging their practises.
14:09	The counsel sought the help of her teammates to appease the judges. The time-up bell intensifies the situation leading the speaker to fumble which the Lordship was quick to notice.
14:12	The bench was generous in providing a 30-sec extension to the respondent to complete her submission.
14:14	The co-counsel approaches the dias to deal with further issues. He seems meticulous with his submissions and employs various judgements to substantiate his point.
14:17	The judges throw a question early in his speech. The counsel agrees with the queries made by the learned Lordship and tries to convince him by referring to relevant paragraphs of his proposition,
14:20	The counsel apologizes as he seems confused in his arguments. The counsels of other team are smiling as they might have got a catch for their rebuttal.
14:24	The clock is ticking with only five minutes left. Coupled with this, the questions posed by the bench is making the speaker stammer despite the speculation that he might have convincing words to offer.
14:26	The Lordship enquired about the market share of the respondent and the bench is demanding missing relevant documents. The counsel tries his best to satisfy the judges but instead, he ends up into a web of missing strings in the argument.
14:30	Like the Speaker 1, Speaker 2 too requires help from his teammate to answer the questions. With this, the clerks rings the bell indicating the end of time for his speech.
14:32	Team Cendaur rises as their speaker recites the prayer before the Honorable court.
14:35	As anticipated earlier, the learned counsel representing the informant is ready with the rebuttal and he calmly points out the missing pieces of evidence from respondent’s arguments.
14:39	The respondent’s counsel walks over to the battlefield with all the relevant points in her quiver and she concludes her counter rebuttal aptly.
14:41	The court clerks asks the participant teams to leave the courtroom marking the stimulating end of prelimnary round 2.

Court Room 10

13:05	The slight chill in the weather is quite paradoxical to the predicted heat storm as the competition commences.The participants have arrived in the court room and are duely guided by the Court Clerk regarding the rules.
13:09	The Judges enter the courtroom and the participants stand as a gesture of repect. The proceedings commence rightafter.
13:14	The first Speaker from the Informants’ side come up to the podium and he is guided by the Honourable Judges to start with the brief facts . The speaker obliges with same.
13:19	The speaker presents the breakup of the stucture of his speech to be explained by him . He goes on to cite the issues to be explained by him and flagships the rest to the Speaker 2.
13:24	As the speaker goes on to present his arguments , the Judges continue with their interrogative line of questioning. The Court Clerk notifies the passage of 10 minutes.
13:27	One of the Judges question the speaker regarding the issue he was presenting . The speaker brainstorms for a minute but is unable to come up with a valid reasoning. A whoosh of disappointment fills the courtroom.
13:30	The informants team seem to be relaxed despite the grilling by the judges. A slight gleam of happiness can be seen in the eyes of the Opposite party. The first speaker concludes his speech and the second speaker takes his place at the dias.
13:36	The Speaker 2 goes ahead with her speech . The Judges questions the validity of her argument and ask ker to support with a landmark judgement related to the presented facts. The Informant side seem, as pointed by the bench, a bit ignorant of the facts of the case.

13:40	The uninterested looks on the faces of opposite party can be taken as a gesture of their ultimate win as the Informants’ boat sail into the treacheous waters of twisted questions.
13:44	Unavailibilty of the bare act with the Informant’s team result in a much needed lesson on its importance by one of the Judges. The Court Clerk annouces thr plaucity of time and this provokes the speaker to conclude with her speech.
13:47	After the completion of arguments from the informants’ side there is a pause of 30 seconds. This 30 seconds is enough to define the atmosphere of the courtroom . It seems full of anxiety on the part of opposite party . The informants is complemented with an expression of schdenfreude.
13:51	The first speaker of the Opposite party starts with his speech and present the stucture of his speech. The speaker goes on to advance his argument. It is not long before he is interrupted by the Judges.
13:56	The timer bell rings and the sound of the bell seems to drain the motivation of the speaker. The researcher provides the much needed support to the speaker and there he goes finally citing a case law.
14:00	The loose sheets of paper appear flying because of the fan but this does not devaitate the confidence of the speaker as he answers the judges. The judges seem satisfied by the speakers’ reasoning.

14:04	The second speaker of the Opposite Party approches the dias and begins with a self assured note. Sadly the speaker’s building of confidence soon faces a danger as the Judges flood him with a series of questions.
14:10	The Informants team seem to be holding their breaths and attentively listening to the speaker’s speech. The Speaker 2 concludes his part and the dias is once again taken over by the Speaker 1 from the Opposite Party’s side.
14:15	The speaker starts by explaning Issue No 3 and is interrupted by the Judge. He seems unpreturbed by the interruption and handles the question with a relative ease.
14:18	The Court Clerk notifies the plaucity of the time . This result in the Honorable Judge asking the speaker to summarise his speech. The speaker sums up his prayer.
14:24	Now the court is all set to see the swords clash in the war ground. It is the time of rebuttals . Both the teams have an expression that of a archer eying the Bull’s eye, ready to shower arrows of rebuttals.
14:26	The first rebuttals comes from the Informant’s side but is unable unnerve the opposite party.
14:28	The opposite party’s rebuttals are brief but effective. With the end of rebuttals the argument round ceases. The Judges provide some insightful points to the participants on thier performance. This marks the end of the court proceedings.

Court Room 11

13:09	Counsel 1 from the first team seeks permission to place his arguments before the Honourable Judges. The permission has been granted by the Honourable Judges.
13:13	The current Counsel started his arguments while making a rapid reference to the statement of facts that is available. One of the Honourable Judges halted the Counsel and asked him to jump to the Jurisdiction part.
13:17	The Honourable Judges asked the Counsel to clarify how he is able to utilize the Green Channel. However, after a great period of counter – questioning, the Honourable Judges appear to be dissatisfied with the arguments presented by the Counsel on behalf of the question.
13:21	One of the Honourable Judges asked how owing shares is restrictive for others in the market. The Counsel turned his face towards the fellow members of his team to seek help in answering the question.
13:25	The Counsel refers to page number 40 and quotes a caselaw for the last issue that is present there. The Judges checked the page number and asked whether the Counsel is referring to a regulation or a caselaw as they fail to find it. The Honourable Judges takes the fact into consideration that there is not proper citation in the memorial presented by the team.
13:28	The Honourable Judges are of the opinion that it is a commercial transaction and asked the Counsel why should the CCI intervene? It seems that the train of arguments has been completely derailed by the questions that are being put forward by the Honourable Judges. In middle of the tension, the court clerks infromed everyone that there is no more time available for the current Counsel.
13:29	The current Counsel pleaded for some extra time to conclude his arguments. The permission has been granted by the Honourable Judges.
13:30	The Counsel has summed up his arguments.
13:31	Counsel 2 from the first team stands up and requested the Honourable Judges to let him place his arguments before the Honourable Court. He seems very confident in his tone and the Honourable Judges have granted him the permission.
13:35	One of the Honourable Judges welcomed the Counsel with the question that what are the main grounds on which he is considering the market to be anti-competitive in nature. He appears to be revolving around the same point.
13:39	The Counsel made a remark that new OTT platforms are not able to enter into the market. On which the Honourable Judges appear to be shocked and they asked the Counsel to explain and justify his remark. The Counsel carries on with the view that due to some platforms who have majority of the consumers, other platforms are not able to enter. The Honourable Judges didn’t appear to be a fan of this reasoning and told the Counsel that they are not ‘getting restricted’. The Counsel apologised and proceeded with the arguments.

13:42	While the counter-questioning by the Honourable Judges doesn’t appear to end any time soon, the Court clerks rang the bell and made everyone aware of the time left i.e., 5 minutes.
13:45	Things are heating up quickly as not much time is left and the Counsel is still stuck at the questioning phase. The Counsel asks the Honourable Judges to let him move forward with the arguments. The Counsel proceeded and introduced the Honourable Judges about the third issue.
13:49	The Counsel respectfully pleaded the Honourable Judges for two more minutes as the bell rang for completion of time. The Counsel is granted the requested extra time but the he is still made to answer the questions put forward by the Honourable Judges.
13:52	The Counsel asks to proceed further with his arguments but due to lack of time, he is asked to sum up his arguments by the Honourable Judges. Accordingly, the Counsel humbly submitted his series of arguments. The Counsel asked for some more time to offer the prayer, which has been granted by the Honourable Judges. One of the Honourable Judges takes it into consideration that the Counsel doesn’t remember the prayer.
13:53	Counsel 1 from the second team requested the Honourable Judges to present her arguments. The permission has been granted.
13:55	The current Counsel seems very confident as she starts her arguments with brief facts in bold voice. One of the Honourable Judges stopped the Counsel and asked her to jumped directly to the issues related to the facts.
13:59	The Counsel made a remark that the Combination Regulations say that there shouldn’t be any kind of overlap. She explains further the types of overlap – Horizontal Overlap, Vertical Overlap and Complementary Overlap.
14:01	The questioning spree here seems to be one like the Question hour in the Parliament. However, the current Counsel is confidently answering every question that is put forth by the Honourable Judges.

14:05	The Counsel seeks permission to move on and tackle the second issue.
14:10	The Counsel tried to bluff the Honourable Judges with a provision of the Competition Act calling it as mandatory for the CCI to intervene. However, she has failed and the Honourable Judges checked the Bare Act of the above-mentioned Act and told her that the word ‘may’ is used in the provision and it is the discretionary power of the CCI to intervene. The Counsel sought permission to move forward which has been granted by the Honourable Judges.
14:11	The Court clerks reminded the Courtroom that the Counsel is running out of the time provided to her to present her arguments.
14:13	The Counsel referred to a caselaw that has been mentioned by the team in its memorial. However, the Honourable Judges took it into the accord that the reference doesn’t contain Ratio Decidendi of the Judgement.
14:16	The Counsel is held back by the questions asked by the Honourable Judges and she is going through her memo to cite a caselaw to support her argument. Nonetheless, she is failed in citing any caselaw and the courtroom moved further.
14:18	The Counsel is getting grilled by the Honourable bench on various provisions and judgements. However, the Counsel seems confident and answered all the questions. The Counsel humbly submitted her arguments as there was no time left.
14:19	Counsel 2 from the second team requests the Honourable Judges to let him place his arguments.
14:22	The temperature inside the courtroom has heated up after the arguments that were made by the first Counsel of the second team. The current Counsel continues in the same atmosphere as one of the Honourable Judges asks him a question.
14:25	The Counsel requests the Honourable Judges to refer to the Clarification book as he justifies his one of the remarks on market share.
14:28	Things are starting to reach a boiling point as the Court clerk notifies that only 5 minutes are left. However nobody seems to be affected by the notification as one of the Honourable Judges continued his question and the Counsel focusing on the same.
14:31	The Counsel answered the question firmly that was asked by the Honourable bench and moved further to the second sub-issue.
13:33	The Counsel made a remark on the ‘shorter time period’. The Honourable Judges didn’t waste any second and asked what time period is considered to be a shorter time period. On which, the Counsel stands silent and requested the Honourable bench to skip this question. The same has been permitted by the Honourable bench.
13:34	The Counsel is being reminded of the fact that his time is up. The request for some extra minutes has been permitted by the Honourable Judges.
13:37	The Cousel has successfully concluded his series of arguments.
13:40	Counsel 1 from the first team has successfully concluded his final remark about the issue while referring to various paragraphs of the moot proposition including paragraph number 38.
13:42	Counsel 2 from the second team moves forward to conclude his arguments while answering the questions asked by the first team.
13:44	The ongoing round has been concluded and the Honourable Judges gave the much needed feedbacks to the teams.

Court Room 12

13:12	The Judges make their way into the courtroom prompting the parties to stand up in respect. The Judges declare the court to be in session while the first speaker gears up to speak.The first speaker briefs the judges with the nuances of their speech structure.
13:16	The first judge inquires of the jurisdiction basis of the informant party. Further questions asked by the judges seem to startle the first speaker,but continues nevertheless. The speaker elucidates the relevant definitions while the incessant questioning is deflected by the speaker much to the dissatification of the judges.
13:20	The second Judge inquires of the precedential nature of the awards by the commission which are answered by the speaker in an established manner supplied with relevant statues.The questions posed by the judges seem to fluster the speaker while he tries to answer confidently.
13:24	A silence ensues in the courtroom while the first speaker tries to gather his thoughts nervously skimming through his documents. The speaker gathering courage furthers his arguments only to be interrupted by the judge with a perplexing question. While the speaker attempts to answer the question, the court clerk holds up the ‘time’s up’ placard.
13:28	The judges grant a 30 second timeframe to the speaker to conclude his arguments while the second speaker anxiously waits for her turn.The speaker is reprimanded by the judge for exceeding his timeline which is followed by the grant of permission to the next speaker to approach the dias.
13:32	The speaker is demanded to present the details of the party she is representing leading her to nervously submit the wrong details which is quickly corrected by her researcher. The second speaker continues with the further line of argument highligting the rational nexus between the facts and the arguments posited.

13:36	The speaker is confident in the latter part of the speech while advancing water-tight justifications for the informant’s stance. The queries of judges are wittily deflected by the second speaker while the judges being adamant on their satisfaction require the speaker to answer.
13:40	The speaker prompts the judges to refer to the submitted documents with an incessant series of questions. The speaker after due deliberation pleads ignorance before the judges which is duly accepted.
13:44	The judges cue the speaker to conclude in a quick and concise manner which foments a swift conclusion of arguments.
13:48	The judges do not concede but continue to bombard the second speaker with questions which are answered anxiously by them. The speaker seems to struggle in coming up with pertinent responses while she goes through the hodge-podge spread before her on the dias.
13:52	The judges impel the informant party to proceed with the prayer which is delivered by the team standing up in respect leading to the conclusion.
13:55	The speaker of the opposite party requests the permission of The Lordships to approach the dias which is consquently granted. The speaker confidently argues her way to convince the judges with the preliminary arguments.
13:59	The speaker requests the judges to examine the submitted documents which is countered by the judges argument. A sense of tension emerges in the courtroom as the speaker puts her foot down on the inquiries advanced by the judges.
14:03	The judges cue the speaker to not delve in the facts of the case due to paucity of time. The speaker continues but is again interrupted by the questions which are duly and confidently answered by the speaker.
14:07	After the grant of permission to proceed further, the speaker commences with the latter part of her argument attracting a lesser number of questions much to the opposite party’s relief. The court clerk indicates the remaining time of 2 minutes.

14:11	To direct the speaker in right direction, the researcher nervously looks to the speaker while she attempts to answers the incessant questions by the judges. The speaker requests a time extension which is granted. The judges remarks that it is not court’s work to attend to conjectures while directing the speaker to conclude.
14:15	Continuing with the argument, the second speaker approaches the court on grant of the judges who start questioning the speaker first hand. The researcher prudently helps the second speaker, supplying her with relevant information.
14:19	The second speaker commences her speech, continuing with the arguments furthered by her co-counsel. The speaker requests the judges to refer to the presented documents, connecting them with the relevant facts of the case.
14:23	The judges direct the speaker to proceed with the last limb of the arguments, which are delivered in an equanimous manner. The judges grant an extension of 2 minutes to the speaker to sum up her arguments.
14:27	In hubble-bubble, the researcher provides the speaker with relevant answers. The speaker seems baffled due to the arduous sequence of questions posed by the judges. The speaker unable to answer the question is directed by the judges to conclude her argument.
14:30	The opposite party standing up in respect prays to the court for relief which is again questioned by the court. The judges direct the informant party to adhere to the already submitted arguments to be included in the rebuttals.
14:34	A 5-prong rebuttal is presented by the informant party followed by reply to the rebuttal by the opposite party. The opposite party presents a confident and precise reply to the arguments advanced by the informant party much to the satisfaction of the judges.
14:37	With the conclusion of the reply, the preliminary rounds came to an end.

Court Room 13

13:08	There is a thick swell of excitement for the second round of preliminary examinations; the competitors are shuffling through papers that are crucial to their success. All eyes are on the arrival of the judges for the initiating round two.
13:11	After the judges have arrived, the atmosphere in the courtroom shifts dramatically, and the speakers’ enthusiasm levels skyrocket.
13:13	The informant counsel appears before the court. The judge can hear her words echoing throughout the courtroom as she begins to make her case. The counsel presents the factual matrix to the satisfaction of the jury.
13:16	Rarely do we see counsels who can both explain and react to the bench’s queries with such clarity. The counsel does the needful and uplifts the spirit of her team.
13:20	The bench asks the counsel a very pertinent inquiry about the first issue brought up. The judge asks the counsel some targetted questions, and the attorney responds with both pointed and frank responses.
13:25	There are still 5 minutes remaining on the clock, and the bench and counsel are still questioning and answering each other. After a lengthy back-and-forth between them, the judges seems more optimistic, and counsel proceeds with her argument.
13:30	With her two-minute break behind her, the counsel looks relieved. She answers the questions posed by the bench with great responses. When the counsel’s time is up, she hands off the reins to another counsel to continue building the case.
13:34	The informant’s counsel makes a court appearance and expands on the informant’s case. In this peaceful courthouse, the judge is attentively listening to the counsel’s arguments.
13:38	When there were only ten minutes left on the clock, the informant counsel calmly and confidently presents the case for the informant side while flipping through the pages of the brief.

13:42	The counsel, having finished going through the pages of the brief, is now caught up in the sequence of channeled questions that are being asked by the court. This results in a conversation between the judge and the counsel that seems to cover a lot of ground that is very important to the case.
13:47	The opposing party is asked to present rebuttals, if any. If they do, the judge will consider those rebuttals. This brings the arguments presented by the informant side to a close, and at this point the informant side is reciting the prayer.
13:49	The other party arrives in front of the judge and begins presenting their case regarding issue one. The attitude of the opposite group, actively dealing with the problem, is composed and self-assured.
13:53	As the court asks some questions to the opposing party’s counsel, there is a growing feeling of urgency among the opposing party, which calls into question the opposing party’s capacity to maintain its composure.
13:56	In front of the judge, the counsel presents some compelling reasoning and illustrations. The counsel is submitted with five minutes remaining on the clock, prior to another matter being brought up by the bench.
14:00	In front of the judge, the counsel presents some compelling reasoning and illustrations. The counsel has five minutes remaining on the clock, prior to another matter being brought up by the bench.
14:01	An extension of time has been requested by the counsel, and the court has decided to award it. The Counsel makes effective use of the additional time allotment, much to the delight of the judge.
14:03	Before the bench, the opposing counsel begins to present their argument. The bench questions the counsel while she simultaneously provides rebuttals to the questions they have posed. The counsel is given a warm greeting by the bench with questions.

14:11	The counsel is concerned because their case is dependent on the question asked by the bench, and she attempts to sidestep the question by referring to the pages while sweating profusely.
14:14	The counsel asks the bench to answer the questions through a method of providing point by point analysis while the counsel herself misses out on a point very essential to the case.
14:18	A scathing question is posed by the bench to the counsel in an attempt to “dominate” the party. While at the same time establishing themselves as a non-dominant character, the counsel responds the question in an impressive fashion!
14:22	The opposing side forgot to say the prayer before the respected courtroom when praying for more time. A request for a time extension is granted when the opposite party makes a “prayer” to the bench. A situation to not be in!
14:28	The Informant party is being “informed” by the bench for the rebuttals if any, the informant side then take the dais for the rebuttals and engage in pointy rebuttals.
14:31	Conclusively, the parties participate in straight rebuttals and submissions. After an hour of arguing, they are full of assurance and vigor, making for a great exchange.
14:34	The jury has a smile on their faces as they witnessed an intense competition amongst the teams. The Parties now wait outside the courtroom as scoring continues. There is a sense of nervousness in the air!

Court Room 14

12:55	Calmness surrounds the courtroom as the informants wait for the judges and the opposite party to arrive.
13:01	The opposite party enters the courtroom with an undisturbed demeanor and both the parties skim through their prepared documents.
13:04	The judges arrive and both the sides wait in anticipation. The judge seeks clarification regarding the time slots.
13:08	Cousel 1 of team Perseus seeks permission to approach the dais which is granted. The counsel proceeds with a confident approach to only proceed with the submissions provided by her.
13:10	Counsel 1 alleges the anti-competitive practices and the judges redirect her to Issue no 1. The counsel addresses the divide in the arguments to be presented by her and the co-counsel.
13:12	The counsel fumbles at the onset of questions from the judge. The judges asks the counsel to read the proviso of Section 5 of the Competition Act, 2002 and further proceeds to question her on the facts.
13:15	The judges question the awareness of the counsel with regard to the relevant provisions in which she seeks 10 seconds to respond. The judges seem confused by her answer.
13:16	The court clerk alerts the room about the stipulated time. The counsel fails to provide relevant case laws and a fall in her confidence is visible.
13:18	The counsel’s staggering confidence is interrupted by the electricity cut. The judges asks the court clerk to pause the timer.
13:20	After a few minutes of silence in the courtroom, the counsel gears up and proceeds to argue as the court clerk once again alerts the room of the time.
13:23	The judges provide the counsel with sufficient time to complete her arguments while they listen to her with complete attention.
13:25	The counsel refers to the memorandum as the judges keep questioning her. However, this time she responds with utter confidence and continues to fiercely strengthen her stance by referring to the prepared documents. The judges grant 2 minutes for her to complete her arguments.
13:28	The judges questions the foundation of the counsel’s arguments. To this, the counsel provides an analogy which is dismissed by the judges. The counsel is interrupted due to paucity of time and she is provided 15 seconds to complete her argument.
13:32	After a striking grilling session by the judges, the counsel proceeds to gather her courage and answers the questions shot at her. She finishes her arguments with more confidence as she had at the start of the session.
13:35	Counsel 2 of team Perseus proceeds to argue with an aura of confidence. She explains the market conditions and refers to a submitted case law to substantiate her argument regarding ‘market power’.
13:38	The counsel concedes to an error made in the citations which creates confusion in the courtroom. The submission by the team is different from the submissions before the judges and the researcher comes forward to clear the confusion.
13:41	The much awaited cross-questioning starts in the courtroom. The judge mentions a case law; the counsel is well-versed with the facts of the said case. She however is unsure about the clarifications which the judges seek and the researcher steps forward.

13:44	The researcher passes a note to the counsel which she uses to substantiate her point. Before she could finish her argument, a fresh wave of questions are thrown at her.
13:47	With 2 minutes left on the clock, the counsel proceeds to fiercely argue with no sense of hesitancy. She proceeds to the second argument after due questioning on the her first argument.
13:50	The counsel argues that Section 3(1) has a standalone application which she substantiates confidently by citing a case law. The judges question her; however, they are not satisfied by her answer and proceed to bombard her with questions.
13:52	The judges in the subsequent questions seek clarification on the argument but are left dissatisfied by the answers. The court clerk alerts the room about the paucity of time.
13:55	In a turn of events, the counsel seeks to plead the prayer after she was refused with extension of time. After summing up her pleadings, team Perseus now awaits the arguments from the opposite party.
13:56	Counsel 1 of team Hydrus; opposite party starts off with a calm composure and explains the divide in the arguments between both the counsels.
13:59	The counsel proceeds to argue without any interruption from the judges as they listen to him with concentration.
14:02	The judges pose him with layered questions which he answers while referring to the proposition. The heated cross-questioning is underway. The counsel is fettered by the paucity of time, yet he responds to the analogy drawn upon by the judge.
14:05	The counsel points out a flaw in the argument of the informant party which was brought up by the judges, The informant seems confident and prepared to rebutt it later on.

14:08	The judges convey to the counsel to shift his perspective to the consumers and he then proceed to argue, not flustered by the directions.
14:10	The judges ask counsel to proceed to the next issue after granting extension of time. The judges keep interrupting the counsel who seems to be a bit flustered.
14:14	The counsel refers to a cited case law. The judges point out the lack of authority and thus dismiss the case. The counsel is taken aback but proceeds to argue while admitting the fault.
14:18	After exhaustion of the extended time, Counsel 1 seems unsatisfied with the proceedings. However, he passes the baton to Counsel 2 of team Hydrus.
14:21	As the fierce questioning starts, the counsel proceeds to battle through the questions. The counsel falters in his arguments which he covers up by citing the table in the proposition.
14:25	The judges seem irritated by the lack of satisfactory answers which they expect from the parties. The counsel, however, confidently proceeds to cite the memorandum.
14:27	The counsel answers the questions in a layered manner yet, the judges can be seen looking forward to the court clerk to notify the timings. With only 5 minutes left on the clock, the counsel proceeds to argue on the next issue.
14:30	With pressure building up on Counsel 2, he proceeds to cite pages from the propositions to substantiate his arguments. The judges question him on legal doctrine of ‘essential commodity’ which he confidently answers.
14:33	As the unending cross-questioning continues, the counsel appears eager to answer the questions put forth by the judges. He however seems to have been cornered by the judges as they ask him of relevant case laws which is not mentioned in the compendium.
14:36	The judges require the said case law and the researcher passes it to the counsel to produce it before the judges. A blanket of confusion seems to have surrounded the court room as the counsel is trying his best to answer the questions thrown at him.
14:40	The judges seem tired as they proceed to question the counsel. The counsel rests his case satisfactorily as he proceeds to his seat.
14:41	Counsel 1 of team Persues rebut the foundation of the opposite party’s arguments. The opposite party seems taken back at the rebuttals.
14:43	Counsel 2 of the opposite party proceeds to answer with a renewed sense of confidence by citing case laws.
14:44	The participants proceed outside the courtroom as the judges proceed to mark the teams.

14:46

With this, the preliminary round 2 in courtroom 14 comes to an outstanding finish.

Court Room 15

13:07	The judges have arrived. Despite a powerful but tiring Preliminary round 1, the teams are yet again charged with energy to start pleading their cases. Counsel 1 for the Informants asks for permission from the Bench to approach the podium. Counsel 1 is very quickly interrupted by the judges and is asked for a clarification regarding who the counsel represents. The counsel seems flusterred but goes ahead with the issues at hand.
13:11	Before the Counsel can proceed with his arguments, he is faced with a line of questioning by the bench regarding a typographical error in the party’s written submission. The speaker seems to be losing confidence as the interrogation gets more and more intense.
13:15	As the Counsel begins to argue, he is yet again interrupted. The Counsel is now given a minute to explain the relevant facts of the case as per his interpretation.
13:19	The speaker seems to be gaining confidence as he continues with his averments. He answers the question thrown at him without letting his voice waiver.
13:25	With only a little time remaining, the Counsel is still left with an issue. The Judges now scrutinize every single word submitted by the Speaker. Nonetheless, an extension is given to the Speaker in order to complete his submissions but along with it comes a heated round of questioning by the bench.
13:29	It seems like the Speaker’s lucky day as he is granted another extension for putting forward his arguments. Despite the continuous ringing of the bell by the court clerk, the Counsel continues to speak and is asked to wind up. Counsel 2 approaches the Podium and starts with his arguments.
13:35	With much fervor, the Speaker continues with his submissions without much interruption from the bench. The bench seems to be very carefully listening to the Counsel. When asked for a clarification, the same is satisfactorily given by Counsel.

13:41	The Speaker maintains his stance despite there arising a contradiction in the statements made by him as pointed by the bench. In spite of such a heated line of inquiry posed by the Judges, the speaker has answered all that the judges were skeptical about. Or has he ? Only the results will tell.
13:48	The Counsel has successfully wrapped up his arguments and there exists silence in the room as the judges go about with certain formalities.
13:49	The Counsel for the Opposite Party now approaches the podium and lays down the issues to be dealt with by him in due course of time
13:54	Showing a gesture of denial, the judge cuts off the speaker with an averment that the bench is unconvinced. Even so, the Counsel sticks to his arguments and gives a further explanation of his arguments.
13:59	Before the Counsel can move on to his next issue, despite a paucity of time, he is asked to clarify a point that has been submitted by the opposite party in their written submissions.
14:04	“TIME IS UP”, the court clerks hold up their placards for the 2nd time. The speaker is, however, given an extra minute to ensure a fair working of proceedings as the same was given to the informant party.
14:06	Counsel 2 approaches the podium and goes ahead with Contention No. 3. His confidence has caught the attention of judges as they keenly listen to the speaker. No interruptions occur.

14:11	The Team for the Informant carefully dissects every word uttered by his opponent team, making sure they make things difficult for their opponents during the rebuttal round. Will they succeed? One can only hope.
14:16	The speaker is racing against time while being constantly bombarded with questions from the bench. Let’s hope he reaches the finish line!
14:20	The counsel requested for an extension of his time limit. 2 minutes have thus been granted to him but along with a warning. A warning to cut him off as soon as the time is up.
14:22	Going ahead with his prayer, the counsel concludes his arguments. Now starts a round of heated rebuttals which will test the teams ability of quick and smart thinking. There is purpose to the counsel’s walk as he approaches the podium to lay down his rebuttals and does so with strength and fervor.
14:26	The Counsel for the Opposite party answers the rebuttals with much calm and equal power.
14:27	With this, The Preliminary Round 2 is concluded.

Court Room 16

13:11:00 AM	Let the games begin! The preliminary round 2 has officially commenced. Stay tuned as we bring you the latest updates on this exciting competition, where only the best of the best will emerge victorious.
13:12:00 AM	Before the competition begins, the court clerk takes a moment to remind the participants of the rules and regulations of the moot court. The participants pay close attention, ensuring that they are fully prepared to compete fairly and effectively.
13:14:00 AM	After an anxious wait, the judges have finally arrived and the proceedings are about to begin.
13:17:00 AM	After a few minutes of settling in, the judges gave the signal for the preliminary round to begin. The informants requested to start with the issues directly, eager to get straight to the heart of the matter. The clock started ticking, and the first speaker from Team Spinx began her arguments, hoping to sway the judges in her favor.
13:18:00 AM	The power suddenly goes out, plunging the courtroom into darkness. The speaker struggles to continue with her arguments as she searches for a way to illuminate her notes.
13:20:00 AM	After a brief moment of uncertainty, the power comes back and the speaker is able to continue her arguments without further interruption.
13:23:00 AM	The speaker had barely began when one of the judges interrupted to seek clarification on a point, setting the tone for an engaging debate ahead.
13:25:00 AM	The speaker quickly responds to the first judge’s question but then gets interrupted again by the other judge, who asks for real life examples to support the argument. The speaker appears to be nervous and unable to satisfy the judges with her response.
13:27:00 AM	The judges continue to press for more clarity and evidence to support the speaker’s arguments, but the speaker seems to be struggling to provide satisfactory answers.
13:28:00 AM	The court clerk presses the buzzer indicating that only 2 minutes are left. The speaker pleads with the judges to allow them to move on to the next issue as time ticks away, hoping to leave a lasting impression with her remaining arguments.
13:30:00 AM	The judges demand additional case laws to back up her arguments but the speaker apologises and explains that she does not have any further examples to provide.
13:35:00 AM	The buzzer goes off. However, the judges grant an extension for questioning to further explore the points made by the speaker.
13:37:00 AM	The judge’s reaction to the answer has been less than satisfactory and the judges invite speaker 2 to present the further issues.
13:39:00 AM	As Speaker 2 steps up to the podium, there is a buzz of anticipation in the air. He launches into his argument with energy and enthusiasm, making a strong case for his position.
13:42:00 AM	The judges sharpen their pens and demand clarifications, like hawks circling their prey.
13:43:00 AM	The tension in the room increases as everyone waits to see if the speaker will be able to satisfactorily answer the questions. The opposite party is on the edge of their seats, watching intently as the back and forth between the judges and speaker continue.
13:47:00 AM	With only five minutes left on the clock, the speaker seeks permission from the judges to move towards the next issue at hand.
13:49:00 AM	The judges continue to delve deeper into the facts and arguments and the speaker provides necessary factual details and cites relevant provisions to support his arguments.
13:51:00 AM	The judges seek clarification on the economic aspect of the issue and asks for the rationale of the speaker’s argument.
13:54:00 AM	The time is up and the judges signal the speaker to wrap up with his speech.
13:56:00 AM	The scratching of the pens against paper fills the room as the opposite party furiously jot down notes and strategize their arguments. All eyes are on them as they mentally prepare for the challenge that lies ahead.
13:57:00 AM	The judges invite the Speaker of Opposite party to the stand and proceed with her speech.
13:59:00 AM	Speaker 1 seek permission to start with the arguments directly and the judges grant permission.
14:01:00 AM	Within a minute of starting the argument, the judges question the speaker and began asking a series of questions.
14:03:00 AM	The competition is heating up, and the contestants are leaving it all on the line in their quest for victory. Each move is calculated, each action deliberate, as they push themselves to the limit.
14:05:00 AM	The speaker appears taken aback by the judge’s line of questioning and an unexpected interruption causes the speaker to pause, momentarily stunned.
14:06:00 AM	The clock is ticking and there are only 5 minutes left for the speaker to make her case.
14:09:00 AM	The judges intervene and provide a correction to the speaker regarding an irrelevant term used.
14:11:00 AM	As the speaker concludes, her voice trembles and she struggle to articulate her argument. The judges call upon the next speaker to take the floor, cutting short the conclusion of Speaker 1.
14:13:00 AM	Speaker 2 takes the stage and commences her speech with a thoughtful and nuanced approach.
14:15	One of the judges ask the speaker to elaborate on the relevance of the case laws mentioned in their memorial with respect to the facts of the case.
14:19	Judge’s thirst for relevant case laws remains unquenched as the speaker’s argument fall short of expectations. Will the speaker be able to satiate their appetite for answers in the next line of questioning? Stay tuned to find out.
14:21	The judges intently listened to the speaker, nodding their heads in agreement. The speaker continued with her argument, hoping to make a strong impression. But suddenly, one of the judges interrupted with a question , breaking the stillness and signaling that the heat was back on in the courtroom.
14:25	The buzzer goes off and the time is up. The judges provided guidance to the speaker as she struggled to answer their questions effectively.
14:30	The Informant team asked for rebuttal and the judges permitted them to rebut for 1 minute.
14:32	The buzzer sounds and the round comes to close. The judges thank both teams for their arguments and efforts. The speakers gather their belongings and exit the room, eagerly awaiting the results.
14:33	The preliminary round 2 officially comes to end.

Court Room 17

13.08 PM	The entrance of the judges is welcomed as a little amount of anxiousness surrounds the courtroom. Every person seemed to be experiencing a tense enthusiasm, their hearts racing as they think about what is to come.
13.10 PM	The long-awaited excitement builds as the courtroom hearings finally start. Both sides seem well-prepared.
13.13 PM	The council from the Informant Team starts proceedings with the relevant briefing of the facts of the case. The Judge begin cross-examining the Council of the Informant Team, and this is when the real test starts.
13.15 PM	The judges keep asking various cross-questions. The council now appears a bit lost. Because of the seriousness of the judges’ concern, the council’s trust has significantly weakened. He is still making an effort to explain, taking his time.
13.18 PM	When the judges point out the errors in the memorandum, there is now a long period of stillness in the courtroom. The council again try to proceed further for better explanations.
13.21 PM	The bench makes a claim in relation to his arguments. He responds to them with a variety of examples before continuing with his own submissions.
13.23 PM	The clergy rings the bell by stating that only 5 minutes are left only. The judges continued asking the relevancy of the facts from the Council.
13.26 PM	The judges continue to interrupt the Council during the arguments to bring up the restrictions in the monopolistic market. The Council makes an effort to provide accurate information by providing examples to clarify its points.
13.29 PM	The clergy in the court ring again stating that the time is up. The Council Requests the panel for some extra time for explanation.
13.31 PM	The judges are asked what the case objective is by asking about some of the case laws. Due to his ignorance of the subject of a question based on principles posed by the bench, the counsel appears shocked and disturbed.
13.34 PM	The judges are completely unsatisfied with the council because he falls short of the key goals and important considerations. The judges requested that the Council continue with the second argument.
13.36 PM	The panel’s inquiries are difficult for the council to understand. The panel continues to press the council with issues of current relevance, which weakens the co-original counsel’s argument. The council finds it difficult to resolve the difficulties
13.39 PM	The clergy again ring the bell for stating the fact the time is up. The judges posed the cross-examinations once again. and consequently, they requested the evidence.
13.42 PM	The judges asked for the Co-council to proceed further with the facts and 3rd arguments.

13.46 PM	The co-counsel finds it difficult to understand the panel’s queries. The panel continues to press the co-counsel with issues of current relevance, which weakens the co-original counsel’s argument.
13. 50 PM	The judge’s co countered the facts and questioned the Authority under which the council is using for stating the facts.
13.53 PM	The clergy rings the bell for stating that the time is up.
13.55 PM	The bench asks the co-counsel a number of questions once more, and each time he freezes. He apologizes to the bench for his misunderstanding and continues with his argument.
13.57 PM	The second council from the respondent party rises to speak. There is no question that she is a master of this art because of the ease and grace with which her well planned arguments are presented, underscoring the depth of the legal problems at hand.
14.00 PM	The council begins her speech and starts by stating various statutory provisions which substantiate her case. The panel intervenes in the speech of the speaker and poses her with certain questions. The counsel proceeds to answer the questions posed confidently.
14.02 PM	The panel requests that the counsel conclude her work on the current problem before moving on to the next one.
14.04 PM	The court Clerk rings the bell stating that only 10 minutes are left.
14.07 PM	The council is yet again asked to clarify a technicality regarding a statutory provision. However, the answer given by her is dismissed by the bench on the grounds of being factually incorrect.

14.10 PM	The council began referring to famous landmark cases for the explanation of the term coercion. Regarding the provided facts, the judges began asking questions.
14.14 PM	The council ended her remarks as the court clerk informs the counsel and the panel that the time is up.
14.19 PM	The 2nd Speaker from the respondent side starts proceeding further and states the following further points.
14.22 PM	One of the judges asks an open-ended question related to Consumer interest. Once Speaker 2 answers, she faces another line of a question seeking clarification on any constructive authority or a specific statute that can help counsel substantiate her argument. The statute referred by the counsel is of another jurisdiction and the honorable judge questions it.
14.26 PM	Although the Counsel fails to answer the questions posed by the honorable bench, the former proceeds to his second issue due to the paucity of time.
14.28 PM	The Judges asked the Council to proceed further. The court clerk informs that the time is up.
14.31 PM	The Counsil concludes the speech in the courtroom.
14.33 PM	The rounds are over and the judges are prepared to tally the results.

Court Room 18

13:11	The judges have arrived at the courtroom. The counsel for Informant “Trojan” seeks permission to approach the bench with the proper court etiquettes.
13:12	Speaker 01, in a brisk manner, quickly apprises the judges of the distribution of issues to be dealt with by him and his co-counsel.
13:15	The counsel deftly devises his arguments with proper breakups but is soon after subjected to intense questioning by the Bench.
13:18
13:23	Despite the rapid questioning, the speaker remains true to court etiquette and aptly thanks the Panel for their questions and continues with his argument.
13:26	The court clerk holds the placard indicating the last 2 minutes left for the speaker to wind up with his arguments. The Bench continues to relentlessly cross-question him
13:28	Counsel seeks an extension of time and the Bench allows the same.
13:29	The team is highly attentive to court etiquette as the co-counsel seeks permission to approach the podium. He is granted the same. He is quite swift with his speech and is soon interrupted by the bench with a probing question.
13:33	Speaker 02 relies on a judicial precedent to substantiate his argument but is questioned by the Panel on the usage of the same. He asks the panel to refer to a certain paragraph in his memo submission to justify his argument.
13:35	Speaker 02 seeks permission from the bench for assistance from his team for answering the question and they promptly provide the same.
13:38	The researcher continues to periodically assist speaker 02 in responding to the constant probing of the judges, passing small notes to him.

13:42	The Court clerk informs the courtroom of the last 2 minutes left for the speaker’s speech. The team is in for a challenging day as the judges continue to ceaselessly ask questions. However, the team perseveres in answering them.
13:45	The judges, with their best poker faces on, make it hard for the speaker to determine their satisfaction to his responses.
13:48	The judge takes the team to task over a specific statement of fact from the proposition and speaker 02 endeavors to answer the same convincingly.
13:52	The judge questions the speaker over his interpretation and usage of a specific clause of the statute in his arguments. The judge seems content with his response.
13:54	Counsel seeks permission to address the prayer. Speaker 01 of the opposition party “Horcrux” seeks permission to approach the bench and for their approval to the mode of address.
13:56	The honourable judge promptly starts to question him on the justification of facts to his argument.
14:00	The counsel seems flustered with the constant line of questioning and falters, but he endeavors to answer the same. He soon gains traction and proceeds with his argument.
14:03	The panel is well apprised of the moot proposition and frequently asks pointed questions to the speaker on the facts mentioned therein.
14:06	The relentless round of questioning continues! The court clerk intervenes to indicate the last 2 minutes left for the speaker to wrap up his speech but the speaker, unfortunately, continues to face intense scrutiny from the judges with their persistent questioning.

14:11	Speaker 02 seeks permission to approach the podium and in a serene yet confident manner, with polite etiquette, begins with his arguments.
14:13	There is an apparent loss of confidence as he begins to somewhat falter in his articulation.
14:15	It is time for speaker 02 to face the music as the learned judge subjects him to his first line of questioning. He seeks the assistance of his team members to answer the same.
14:17	Counsel seeks permission to move on to the next issue in his memorial and the judge seeks clarifications regarding the same. The counsel flounders but soon regains ground and satisfactorily answers the judge.
14:20	The judges are sympathetic and silently encourage speaker 02 to continue with his presentation. However, judges continue to frequently intervene with demanding questions.
14:23	The judges nod along to the speaker’s presentation but clearly point out that the use of certain settled precedents is redundant and not at all helpful to his argument.
14:27	The counsel finally proceeds with the prayer and the bench advises the teams to keep their rebuttals short and crisp.
14:28	Speaker 01 for team “Trojan” proceeds with his rebuttals and winds up neatly within a minute. Speaker 01 for team “Horcrux” takes te podium and continues with the surrebuttals.
14:30	The Court clerk asks the participants to leave the courtroom for the bench to deliberate on the results. With this, the exhilarating Preliminary Round 2 comes to an end.

Quarter-Final Rounds

Court Room 1

16:37	Both the team Napoleon and Cosmos await the arrival of the judges. In the meantime, they appear to be confident and composed.
16:41	Judges at their arrival have a friendly chat and proceed to explain what they expect from the parties. Silence envelopes the room as the judges skim through the documents at their table.
16:45	The judges allow the commencement of the Quarterfinals. Counsel 01 of team Cosmos approaches the dais. The judges pose a twisted question to the counsel, to which she takes her time to cite the relevant paragraph.
16:48	The judges seeks a brief statement of facts relevant to her arguments. The judges pay utmost attention to her arguments and the cross-questioning commences.
16:51	The counsel confidently faces the questions posed, however, the judges continue to probe into the arguments. Alongside this, they allow for elaboration on the issues.
16:53	The judges seek information regarding the laws which are pari materia to the laws of India and further pose a question from the memorandum. The counsel seeks time to refer to the memorandum as his expression intensifies.
16:57	The intense cross-questioning has startled the counsel and she is taking her sweet time to answer it. The court clerk alerts the room and the judges ask her to continue elaboration on the argument.

17:00	The counsel argues on the vertical approach of the software, the judges seek clarification on the same. She argues with a brave face.
17:03	The counsel is pushed to the corner when the judges question her back to back and she seems to be stern on her stance even after this.
17:06	The judges ask her to stick to her arguments. Due to paucity of time and the fourth issue still left to be discussed by the counsel, the pressure continues to build up on the counsel.

17:09	The judge provides an analogy which confuses the counsel, She tries her best to answer it but the there is dissatisfaction spread across the judge’s faces. They allow her time to finish up the arguments.
17:12	The counsel mentions the relevant section of the Competition Act, 2002 to substantiate her arguments. It opens up a fresh wave of questions for the counsel as the court clerk alerts the room.
17:15	The judges reiterate their question which the counsel seems to have misunderstood. They grant the counsel an extension of 30 seconds as the court clerk alerts the parties.
17:18	Even after multiple reminders of time from the court clerks, the judges continue questioning the counsel. The fierce cross-questioning seems to be never-ending and have put the counsel at a tight spot.
17:21	After an unending round of questioning for the counsel 1, the counsel 2 of team Cosmos approaches the dais. The judges straightaway ask him to point out the issues.

17:25	He calmly approaches his arguments and is not flustered by the stern questioning of the judges. He refers to the proposition and uses gestures to explain which ooze out confidence.
17:28	The judges try to confuse the counsel with the timeline. He mentions the events with the years confidently and is asked by the judges to refer to the proposition. Silence is evident in the room as he skims through the document.
17:30	A failed attempt to bypass the question is pointed out by the judge. There is evident fall in the counsel’s confidence as he continously refers to the relevant document.
17:33	The judges question the counsel on ‘exclusivity’ and asks him to refer to the relevant paragraph. He is helped by cousel 01 who puts the said paragraph in front of the cousel.
17:35	The judges continue the painstaking cross-questioning and are unsatisfied with the answers.
17:39	The court clerk alerts the court room about the paucity of time. The judges continue to aim burdening questions at the counsel who seems to work well under pressure.
17:41	The counsel apologizes for not being able to answer the question. He then proceeds with the third issue with the consent of the judges. He is warned to refer to the memorandum while presenting his argument.
17:44	The judges question the counsel on the vertical approach, which the counsel takes time to answer. He is bombarded with questions relating to bundling and he answers it with an analogy which has created chaos in the courtroom.

17:47	The judges ask the counsel to refer to section 19(d) which startles the counsel who even after his best try, could not answer the question confidently.
17:50	The team Cosmos ends their arguments after an exhausting hour. The judges allow a break.
17:52	As the judge is back at the courtroom, the respondent side, team Napoleon is asked to proceed. Counsel 01 proceeds to elaborate on the division of issues between the speakers.
17:55	The judges ask the counsel to elaborate on the jurisdiction and seek elaboration with reference to the memorandum. The judges are dissatisfied with the incomplete answer which is visible on their faces.
17:59	The judges attempt a play on the words ‘thriving’ and ‘surviving’ which the counsel answers with utmost confidence. The judges are left with a smirk on their faces and continue to question him on the facts of the case.
18:01	The counsel refers to a case with the appropriate citation to substantiate his point. However, the judges point out particulars from the memorandum which leads the counsel to present his second argument.
18:05	The judges refer to section 19 of the Proposition and start aiming questions at the unaffected counsel. He answers each question with calmness of an ocean.
18:09	The present question posed by the judges has forced the counsel to refer to the relevant documents. He proceeds to answer them with shaking hands yet a calm voice .

18:13	The counsel is questioned on the market condition and he argues that there is no barrier. As the court clerk alerts the room, the judges allow for extension of time on being humbly asked to do so.
18:17	The judges question the counsel on the monopolistic nature of the market. The counsel mentions the relevant years to argue his point while refering to the pertinent paragraphs of the proposition.
18:21	The Counsel 01 hands over the baton to Counsel 02 of team Napolean. The judges seek clarification on the alloted times and inquire into the time left for Counsel 02.
18:23	The Counsel 02 brings with him a wave of confidence which has substantially changed the atmosphere of the court room.
18:26	The judges after patiently listening to the submissions argued by the counsel start off their cross-questioning. The counsel fumbles a little, however, he regains his confidence in a jiffy and continues to argue.
18:29	The judges seek clarification on the vertical arrangement of the program. The cousel refers to the arguments presented by the informants but is interrupted as the judges reiterate their expectation of an explanation.
18:33	The counsel’s speech staggers a little which is followed by silence as he gathers himself to answer the layered questions aimed at him by the three judges.
18:37	The counsel urges the bench to not resort to a narrow interpretation which the judges seem to disagree with. The counsel clamly proceeds to clarify his stance before a fuming arena of questions.
18:39	The judges lean forward as they show their interest in the contention presented by the counsel. Meanwhile, the court clerk alerts the parties and the judges in the court room regarding the restricted time period.
18:42	The cousel had a slip of tongue and has referred to ‘Data Piracy’ as ‘Data Privacy’. The judges have plummeled his act and wished to question the counsel on Technology law but due to paucity of time, have refrained to do so.
18:45	The judges seem enraged at the incomplete answers to the questions and have asked Counsel 02 to proceed with his arguments.
18:50	The counsel continues to answer the questions pointed at him. The Counsel 01 of informant side stands up and starts answering the question aimed at the counsel of the opposite party. The judges reprimand the Counsel of the informant party.
18:55	The counsel seeks extension of 30 seconds but is not able to complete his arguments. The judges dismiss the request of the counsel to plead the prayer due to paucity of time.
18:59	The informant party proceeds with the rebuttals and is provided to do so within 5 minutes. The counsel 02 of team Cosmos is unable to complete his first rebuttal but due to paucity of time, proceeds to the second rebuttal.
19:02	As the court clerks alerts the room about the exhaustion of time, the counsel elaborates on the third rebuttal in the extended time period.
19:04	The judges seem impressed at the counsel for pointing out particular lack of argument in the memorandum of the opposite party. With this, the informant party rest their case and the counsel 02 of the opposite party proceeds.
19:06	The counsel seeks extension of time as the judges allow the researcher to provide the counsel with the relevant documents.
19:08	The judges point out that the counsel keeps on presenting submissions and has not deliberated upon the rebuttals. With a turn of events, as the counsel is unable to answer the questions, an expression of extreme pressure spreads across the face of Counsel 02 of informant side.
19:09	The judges ask the parties to leave the court room and delve into deliberations.
19:10	The Quarterfinal rounds of the competiton in the Court have thus, successfully concluded!

Court Room 2

16:37	Before the arrival of the judges, the anxious participants are given a quick briefing by the court clerk. As the saying goes ‘The sun always shines after the rain’, let’s hope for witnessing a dazzling quarter finals round.
16:39	The panel arrives and the court clerk concludes briefing the participants.
16:42	The counsel of the informants approaches the dais. One of the judge instructs her to skip highlighting the facts and jump to the issues. Meanwhile with no chills, another judge from the panel starlight a way bombards her with questions.
16:44	Seeing the counsel tubmling with her words struggling to answer, the panel decides let go of the questions thereby allowing her to go ahead with her submissions.
16:46	The teams seem to be flustered by the progressive questions by the bench. Yet, while trying to remain composed the counsel moves ahead trying to make way for her submissions in between the gaps of the questions.
16:50	The speaker goes ahead with her submissions and substantiates her claims by citing authoritative case laws, meanwhile the panel interrupts and asks her basic questions pertaining to competition law.
16:53	For every argument made by the counsel, minor clarifications are sought by the panel. The second round of rigorous questioning occurs which lands the counsel in a state of turbulence.
16:56	The counsel finds herself in a pressing situation in between the never-ending rail of questions. Little hope of the completion of the submissions is evident from expressions of the informants.
16:58	Questions regarding technicalities in the market is posed to the counsel, which she manages to answer swiftly. This is marked by a reminder of the time left with the speaker to conclude her submissions.
17:01	The panel asks the counsel to skip to the next issue. Surprisingly, there is a strange flow in the submissions by the counsel. One can articulate that this is because it wasn’t interrupted by any questions from the panel this time.
17:05	And the trend of this round continues as the applauded flow breaks as a question interrupts it. The counsel with conviction answers the same to the satisfaction of the panel. Subsequently she concludes her submissions.
17:08	The co-counsel approaches the panel and starts with her submissions. An argument made by her leaves the panel in splits followed by a situation given by the panel requiring to substantiate it analogous to the situation at hand.
17:12	The panel refers to a case law and emphasizes on a certain point pertaining to penalties. By elaborating it to the point, the co-counsel moves forwards with her submissions.
17:15	To everyone’s amazement, the composed speaker manages to overcome the arduous line of questioning with excellent advocacy.
17:18	Co-counsel ensures that her arguments are authoritative as she ensures substantiating the same using precedents. As the questions posed by the panel is being succinctly answered by the co-counsel, she continues her submissions.
17:20	The judges maintain a calm composure, meanwhile the informants tends to derive another advantage by thanking the panel for asking a specific question, which as per them actually strengthens their argument.
17:25	With two minutes left with the speaker to sum up her submissions, she further delves with other essential issues and substantiates the same using acts and reasoning.
17:29	Although the time is up, the panel permits the speaker to continue with her issues, and asks for reasoning behind her arguments. The panel seems to be quite interested in grilling the co-counsel cause of her befitting answers mixed with the interesting facts of the proposition.
17:31	The counsel of the opposite team approaches the dais. She swiftly highlights the issues that she will be dealing with and begins with her issues.
17:34	The counsel seems to be making dry though factual arguments, which did not attract many questions from the panel.
17:36	A few questions hither and thither are faced by the counsel, which she smoothly answers. The counsel begged to differ to a point made by the panel and provided a reasoning for the same.
17:41	The panel probes the counsel with a question, the counsel answers it while highlighting that the facts of the case does not deal with the same.
17:43	Several sections of the statute are citied by the counsel and the panel is requested to refer to the memo. So far, though satisfactorily or not, the counsel have attempted to answer all the questions posed by the panel.

17:46	The panel cues numerous questions on the counsel, which leaves her baffled. With nervousness running in her veins, she pleads ignorance regarding the same.
17:49	Meanwhile, refreshments for the judges are here, which seems to have brought a slight smile on the face of one of the judges. With just five minutes left to complete her submissions, the counsel moves ahead with the same, she is posed with questions by the panel while having satisfactory sips of coffee simultaneously.
17:53	The counsel seeks for an extension by two minutes, the same is granted by the generous panel and she contiunes with her submissions.
17:57	The paucity of time impels the counsel to conclude her submissions. The co-counsel approaches the dias.
17:58	As an effect of the refershments, the hike in the enthusiasm by the panel is witnessed, which is a cause of them bombarding the co-counsel with questions even before letting her start her submissions. However, the co-counsel tries to keep her calm and answers the same.
18:00	The co-counsel starts with her submissions and elaborates it further. The panel asks crisp questions pertaining to the arguments made by her.
18:04	The panel seeks clarification regarding a matter in the case, the co-counsel tries to answer the same. Two of the judges have a quick discussion among themselves, and revert to questioning the counsel.

18:08	Co-counsel explains the essence of a statutory section asked by the panel and ascertains its relevance to the matter at hand.
18:12	A precedent is cited and elaborated on by the co-counsel, she adheres to the time constraints by ensuring that along with concisely answering the questions posed, she is skimming through the other essential issues.
18:16	The definition of the term ‘time’ as per The Competition Act, 2002 is dealt with by the speaker in order to solidify her claim.
18:19	Although the speaker is out of time, she is granted a generous extension of 20 seconds by the panel to answer a question. Subsequently, the submissions of the co-counsel comes to an end.
18:22	This marks the beginning of the rebuttals and the counsel of the informants approaches the dais for the same. She particularly points out the arguments made by the opposite party and rebuts it using authoritative case laws and relevant sections of the statute.
18:23	The counsel of the opposite party rebuts that the informants have mixed up between two different laws meanwhile they are providing other rebuttals. With this, the rebuttals from both of the sides comes to an end.
18:25	The panel goes ahead to give individual feedbacks to the participants.
18:30	With this, the quarterfinal round comes to an end.

Court Room 3

16:17	Both teams have arrived. They hurry through the last-minute preparations and eagerly and anxiously await the Judges’ Panel.
16:28	The Court clerk uses the time before the arrival of the judges to brief the participants about the rules for the round.
16:34	The judges have arrived and proceeded to take their seats.
16:36	With fear and anxiety in the courtroom, the teams gather their confidence to present their respective cases.
16:37	The third and final Judge for the round arrives.
16:40	The round commences. The counsel of the Informant approaches the lectern.
16:44	The judges begin questioning the speaker to better ascertain his stance and further understanding his arguments.
16:45	The researcher confidently attempts to answer the question, the judges however are unsatisfied. The panel asks the speaker to continue forth with his argumentation.
16:47	The speaker proceeds to elaborate on his points using the Moot Proposition to further substantiate his arguments.
16:50	The speaker is asked a question of law, which he answers by presenting certain provisions from the Act. The judges however raise a contention over the stated provision, counter-questioning the speaker.
16:50	The speaker answers the questions to the satisfaction of the judges, and continues to further his points in a calm and collected manner.
16:52	The judges attempts to ascertain the speakers knowledge of the Proposition, by asking questions of fact.
16:55	The argumentation proceeds forth with the entire court listening in rapt attention. The speaker again turns to case law to help in the further elaboration of his arguments.
16:58	The Court clerk indicates that the speaker has 5 minutes left in his hand to further his points.
16:59	The Judges ask the speaker a question of prior laws and the counsel pleads ignorance to the question.
17:00	The court clerk informs the room that the speaker has 2 minutes left to further elucidate his points.

17:01	The counsel requests for an extension of 2 minutes to forward his points, which the panel grants. The judges ask him to summarize his argument in 60 seconds due to the paucity of time.
17:04	The second speaker now moves to the lectern, and begins his submissions by introducing his primary issues and by briefly explaining his arguments.
17:07	The Judges begin with assessing the familiarity the speaker has with his propositions and ask him to explain certain instances as provided by them in light of the Propositions and the Memorial
17:08	The speaker begins to answer the questions and he further reiterates the arguments raised by his co-counsel.

17:10	The judges ask the speaker to define a key term, and the speaker fails to satisfy the judges with his answer. The judges further ask him a counter-question to answer which the speaker refers to a novel case law, not mentioned in their written submissions
17:13	The speaker continues after being stuck on his words for some time but then returns to his submissions. The judges refer to the compendium of cases provided by the team and asks for the authority and jurisdiction of the cases. The speaker pleads ignorance to the facts of the cases as was asked by the judges.
17:16	The speaker seems flustered by the questions of the judges but he regains composure and referred to substantiated points. He now proceeds with his third issue and starts explaining the issue with case laws and legal provisions as mentioned by the team.
17:18	The judges listen to the speaker with their complete attention, the speaker further brings up points from the proposition to further their stance.
17:20	The Court clerk informs the judges and the speaker that there remain 5 minutes from the allotted time for the speaker. The Judges question the speaker on the facts stated by him and further question the legal stance of the team.
17:22	The judges feel the need to simplify the question for the speaker to allow him to answer it a satisfactory manner, the speaker attempts to answer the question by referring to the proposition and is counter questioned by the Judges regarding the facts of the proposition.
17:24	The judges ask the speaker to summarize and wrap up his arguments due to the paucity of time. He, like his co-counsel, is questioned about the facts from the cases provided by them under their compendium of cases.
17:26	The Speaker summarizes his arguments after which the judges request him to begin with the final prayer.
17:28	The judges ask the speaker a final question, however it appears that the judges feel that the answer provided earlier was unsatisfactory.
17:30	The first counsel for the opposite team arrives at the lectern. She states that she would be dealing with the first and second issues presented by them in their memorandum.
17:32	The Speaker establishes certain key definitions and facts, she also uses certain cases to establish such definitions. The judges begin by asking her about the proposition. Following this the judges counter-question her and after she is unable to answer, she is allowed to move forth with her points.
17:35	The Judges again question her regarding a key fact from the proposition, which they believe to be of utmost importance to the case. The speaker states that she would be dealing with the issue further along in her argumentation.
17:35	The speaker stumbles upon the question, the judges further elaborate their question. She is again allowed to continue with her point as she fails to answer the question.
17:38	The judges again present the speaker with question from the proposition, stating the various tables and annexures present in the same.
17:39	The judges grant her a second chance to assess her answer to the previous question and restate the question to allow her the opportunity to rethink her answer.
17:41	The judges ask the speaker to argue in a certain direction while keeping in mind her submissions and lead them to a better understanding of the stance of the team.
17:42	The speaker defends her position and is asked by the judges to substantiate her argument with any case law or legal provision. she attempts to do so and following this proceeds to her next issue.
17:44	The speaker again presents a case to further her points as requested by the judges.
17:46	The judges begin a question and answer round with the speaker as they are bound by time in order to better gauge the arguments of the speaker.
17:48	The speaker begins answering the questions by quoting case laws. The court clerk informs the room that the speaker has two minutes left to argue her stance.
17:49	The judges question her about the compendium of cases submitted by them. The judge brings forth a point that the informant team would have to rebut.

17:51	The court clerk informs the room that the speaker has run out of allotted time, the speaker is however let to complete her argumentation in brief. The judges question her about her memorandum and the issues raised in it.
17:53	The speaker wraps up her argumentation. The second speaker of the opposite team arrives to the lectern and begins his argumentation. He is asked by the judges to clarify the key issues of the case.
17:55	The speaker answers the question by highlighting the key issue and the judge inquires further about the issues raised by the informants and following this the judges ask the speaker to provide an example from the real world.
17:56	The speaker speaks confidently and continues to explain his points and is asked about a question of law, which the speaker explains thoroughly.
17:58	The judges continue to pose several questions to the speaker regarding the Memorandum, the proposition and his own arguments. The judges highlight an issue with the line of argumentation of the speaker.
18:00	The court is tied up in resolving an issue of the proposition as the back and forth continues between the speaker and the judges continues. The speaker after satisfying the judges with his stancce moves forth with his arguments.
18:03	The Judges ask the speaker about the memorandum submitted by them, regarding highlighting of certain issues.
18:04	The court clerk announces that the speaker has 10 minutes of his alloted time remaining. The judge addresses all the paticipants regarding a certain issue. The researcher pleads ignorance regarding the issue on the opposite party’s end.
18:06	The judge questions the speaker about a certain fact so that everyone is on the same page. The judges ask him to create a distinction between a few key terms.
18:08	The speaker pleads ignorance to certain point in reponse to a certain question. The speaker is allowed to continue with his argumentation which he substantiates with case laws.
18:09	The speaker continues his argumentation, stongly defending the stance of his team. The speaker also confidently answers a question raised by the judges. the judges continue to cross question him on the same.
18:12	The speaker continues with his final issue and is stopped by the judges to facilitate arumentation on more key facts and perspectives.

18:13	The speaker is asked to read a certain legal provision for the convenience of the court room. The judge asks the speaker to explain the relevance of the provision to the issues at hand
18:15	The judge questions the speaker about the key facts about the case at hand, which the speaker confidently answers. He further refers to the proposition to support his answer.
18:17	The back and forth between the speaker and the judges continue despite the end of the time alloted to the speaker as the judges are engrossed in understanding the stance.
18:18	The speaker concludes and the round moves to rebuttals from both teams. The counsel from the informant arrives to the lectern to begin with his rebuts.
18:20	He presesnts a case, which the panel requests him to read the judgement aloud for the Judges. The speaker refers to the proposition to rebut certain points raised by the opposite party.
18:21	He continues with the systematically rebutting the points made by the team and does so in a very calm and confident manner.
18:23	The speaker concludes and the counsel for the opposite team comes to the lectern, and is faced by a question from the judges prompted by the rebuttals from the informant team.
18:24	The speaker attempts to answer but is continually cross questioned by the judges. The speaker however remains calm under the pressure and answers the judges and is allowed to proceed with her rebuttals.
18:26	The speaker continues to rebut the points raised by the informant team and is asked by the judge to reiterate the point she wishes to reiterate, she struggles a bit but finally is able to answer the judges satisfactorily. She concludes her rebuttals.
18:28	The participants are asked to leave the room to allow the judges to deliberate. The round concludes.

Court Room 4

16:37	Both teams have entered the Courtroom and have been briefed about the rules and regulations. The respondent side seems relatively calmer for the upcoming storm.
16:38	The judges have arrived, and there is an increase in tension as the first speaker starts his submission. The speaker is allowed to start with his statement of facts.
16:41	The Speaker has been interrupted by the Bench asked to explain the relevance of case law cited by him.
16:47	The speaker, who started with his issue in a bold voice, has a shift in his demeanor after the incessant questions thrown at him.
16:52	The Bench does not seem to be content with the counsel’s manner of speaking and his argument for the first issue.
16:55	One of the honorable judges asked the speaker to explain the respondent party’s activities and to prove how it is anti-competitive, however, the speaker failed to give a satisfactory answer.

16:59	The speaker proceeded towards the second issue and has been questioned regarding the same. But, in response to the same, an unsatisfactory answer was given.
17:03	As the time allotted to the first speaker comes to and end, the speaker’s voice fumbles a little- contrary to how it was at the start.
17:05:00 AM	The speaker’s hand movement and court mannerisms seem to be irritating the bench as one of the judges pointed the same out. the speaker even though lacking in confidence handled the questioning calmly.
17:08	The second speaker comes to the podium and has to face a bench that is dissatisfied with the speaker before him. The bench has not allowed counsel to start his argument relating to his third issue and has faced a harsh round of questioning about the Sonam Sharma case which was cited in their written submission.

17:13	The arguments put forth by the petitioner side are not as bold as their voice, and the bench does not seem to be content with their submissions. The speaker refused to answer a question put forth by one of the honourable judges.
17:18	The second speaker interrupted the bench as one of the honourable judges was asking him a question. The speaker cites the case of Windows Media Player, however the speaker’s argument falls flat on its face when faced with heavy questioning by the bench, with the last question left unanswered.

17:23	The second speaker, when asked about how the market share is determined, answers contrary to what was stated by his co-counsel. The speaker, with just having minutes left, has a fumbling voice and an air of hesitation.
17:26	The case of Asian Paints has been cited by the speaker, and as there is no interruption by a visibly discontent bench, the confidence in the speaker’s voice increases. The speaker when asked about commercial advantages, answers by stating the resources of the respondent party. The speaker failed to provide the right case law.
17:31	The bench highlights the several mistakes made by the petitioner side in their written submission and providing necessary cases. The counsel is allowed 3 minutes instead of 5 minutes which was requested by the speaker, highlighting the lack of charm in the counsel’s argument. The speaker seems to raise his volume when not interrupted by the panel.
17:35	The counsel’s written submission is again questioned by the panel and in an attempt of satisfying the bench, the speaker yet again disheartens the bench. The speaker when saying his prayer was interrupted by the panel to bring to light that the petitioner side has not mentioned several points said in their written submission. The bench is visibly not satisfied with the submissions of the petitioner side.
17:41	The respondent side counsel chooses to refer to the bench as sir/ma’am individually after being allowed for the same. The facts are skipped by the counsel with due permission. The speaker gradually starts her first issue, with her court mannerism in check.
17:45	The respondent speaker has credibility in her arguments which is visible when questioned by one of the honourable judges, as she holds her ground and the bench seems satisfied. The simplification of the complex jargon of the Competition Act is very impressing.

17:45	The respondent speaker has credibility in her arguments which is visible when questioned by one of the honourable judges, as she holds her ground and the bench seems satisfied. The simplification of the complex jargon of the Competition Act is very impressing.
17:50	The researcher from the respondent side is constantly aiding the speaker. The speaker moves the whole judgement when questioned about it without any specific notes, which displeases the panel.
17:55	The speaker maintains a tranquil composure even when faced with the doubtful faces of the bench. As she proceeds with her second argument, she is faced with a long line of questions that she answers with confidence.
18:01	The bench is restrictive with the time extension and allows only 3 minutes. The speaker while answering questions put forth by the panel cites several contemporary examples, this worked as a double-edged sword for the side as highlighted by the panel. The council is allowed to conclude her argument as her time comes to an end.
18:07	The co-counsel starts her submission and is very fast contrary to her co-counsel, the speaker is not just constantly fumbling and cites a report from a source that is of dubious character. The speaker further cites example of tinder and bumble to provide a persuasive argument.

18:12	The speaker starts fumbling, her calm and confident face faltering when faced with a multiplex of questions. The bench is not impressed by the replies of the speaker. Nonetheless, the speaker is further allowed to move to the next issue as the bench is not satisfied by her reply.
18:17	With just 10 minutes remaining, a satisfactory submission is turned into an inadequate one as the speaker cites a case which is not mentioned in their written submission. One of the honourable judges highlights the lack-lustre nature of the respondent’s submission.
18:22	The speaker even after facing heavy criticism for her argument, the voice and assertiveness of her voice trembles. The speaker still sticks to her argument and there is visible disenchantment. the speaker is asked to defend two of the several arduous questions due to lack of time.
18:28	The speaker seems to be ceding pressure put by the bench and when the speaker tried to elude a question, was very bitterly reminded of it by the bench. Further, after the second speaker completed her prayer, she was reminded of the question that was avoided by the first speaker.
18:33	The rebuttals from both sides seem very stale as the bench seemed very unexcited by them. Further, the council from the petitioner, in his true fashion was loud and the co-counsel from the respondent side maintained her pace as they spoke.
18:35	The anxiety present before the start of the submissions has now turned into a feeling of low spirits for both teams. With the saddening rebuttals, the Quarter Finals come to an end.

Semi-final Rounds

Court Room 1

10:03	The competitors are all assembled, nerves and anticipation filling the room. The semi-finals of the competition are set to begin as soon as the judges enter the courtroom. The best of the best have made it this far and we are in for a nail biting ride to the finishing line. We are excited to bring you every minute of the action as these teams battle it out. Stay tuned!
10:19	The participants are reviewing their notes and rehearsing their arguments in preparation for what lies ahead. Will their preparation be enough to impress the judges and secure victory?
10:31	The moment we’ve all been waiting for has arrived. The stage is set, the teams are ready, and the judges are in place. It’s time to turn up the heat and intensify the competition, as we officially commence the semi-final rounds of this thrilling battle.
10:33	The counsel has requested the court’s indulgence to proceed with their presentation of the factual background of the case. They have requested the court’s permission to proceed, and it has been granted.
10:35	The counsel has now turned to present the issues at the heart of this case. With the first question already fired, the counsel must face the heat and show their prowess in the courtroom.
10:38	The speaker oozes confidence as she articulates her arguments with conviction, leaving the judges nodding in agreement.
10:40	But suddenly, one of the judges seeks clarification, breaking the stillness of the room. The speaker gathers her thoughts and gives a well-thought answer to the question.
10:43	The courtroom is charged with tension as the judges repeatedly probe the speaker’s arguments.
10:46	The speaker takes a momentary pause as the judges fire a rapid succession of questions at her. However, she manages to collect her thoughts and gives a well-crafted response which leaves the judges satisfied.
10:49	The judges interject with a pointed question, inquiring about how the speaker intends to address the bench.

10:51	The judge’s curiosity knows no bounds as they continue to question the speaker without mercy. The speaker has to deal with the questions with perfect articulation to save her side.
10:53	The speaker has now moved to present the second issue, presenting her evidence to back her arguments. The judges appear to be focused on getting a better understanding of the market dynamics and how they relate to the case at hand.
10:58	The buzzer goes off, signalling the end of the first speaker’s allotted time. Although the time is up, the judges have granted an extension to the speaker to provide further arguments and evidence.
11:00	The speaker confidently points out to the relevant provisions, showcasing her in depth knowledge of the subject matter.
11:02	As time ticks down, the hon’ble judges ask the speaker one final question, hoping for a clear and concise response before her extended time ends.
11:04	Despite the judge’s repeated interruptions, the speaker maintains a confident demeanor. She responds to each question with poise and provides relevant information and arguments to support her case.
11:05	Speaker 2 takes the stand. She begins by providing a brief overview and outlining the structure of her arguments.
11:08	The judges interrupt her and ask a pointed question regarding the applicability of a specific legal precedent to the case at hand. Despite the interruption, the speaker answers the question with poise and clarity, earning approval from the judges.
11:10	The speaker continues with her arguments. The judges listen intently, occasionally interjecting with questions. The speaker remains calm and composed, confident in her knowledge of the case.
11:12	Having made a compelling argument, the speaker now moves to a new line of reasoning, providing relevant facts and figures.

11:15	The judges are firing off questions one after another, leaving the speaker struggling to keep up. Despite this, the speaker tries to answer each question to the best of her abilities.
11:17	The judges seem impressed with the speaker’s composure but their questions continue to be aimed.
11:19	The speaker politely asks the to permission to move on to the next issue. The judges nod in agreement and grant her permission to move to the next issue.
11:21	The court clerk notifies that 5 minutes are remaining. The speaker on the dias gathers her thoughts for the final strech.
11:23	The judges ask the speaker about the nature of the case law being discussed but the speaker appears to have misunderstood the question asked. Despite the initial confusion, the speaker provides a clear answer.
11:26	The sound of the buzzer echoes in the courtroom, indicating that the allotted time is up. However, the judges ask the speaker to answer the questions which were left unanswered before.
11:29	The judges’ questioning is persistent and thorough. It feels like the speaker is being put through the wringer of legal scrutiny. She is asked to wrap up her argument and conclude within 30 seconds.
11:30	The opposite party is nervously awaits its turn to argue their case before the panel of esteemed judges. The pressure inside the courtroom is palpable.
11:32	The Speaker from opposite party has now taken the dias to present his arguments. He requests the bench’s permission to proceed which is granted.
11:34	As the speaker moves to his first submission, the courtroom is focused on every word and everyone is eager to hear the opposite party’s position on the issues at hand.
11:37	As the speaker proceeds with his arguments, the judges interject with questions and clarifications. The judges ask a question about correlation between market share and gains. The judges seem satisfied with his response and urge him to continue with his argument, which the speaker proceeds to do.
11:41	The clerk announces that there are only 10 minutes left in the round. The speaker moves with his arguments and the judge become more focused in their questioning
11:45	With a strong foundation laid, the speaker for the opposite party moves to another key issue of the case.
11:47	As the speaker responds to a question, he provides an example to illustrate his point. However, the judges continue to ask probing questions, trying to test the speaker’s knowledge and argumentation skills.
11:51	With only 2 minutes left with the speaker, the tension is rising. The speaker is seen under pressure to present his arguments effectively while addressing the judge’s questions.
11:53	The speaker is forced to conclude his arguments prematurely due to time constraints, leaving some arguments unfinished.
11:55	Speaker 2 of the opposite party takes the dias, summarises the main points of the arguments and emphasises the key issues of the case.
11:57	The speaker starts presenting the submission for the first issue at hand. He lays out the key facts and arguments in a clear manner. He draws the judge’s attention to relevant facts and precedents, and highlights how they support their position.

12:00	The judges ask the speaker to clarify their doubt regarding a survey that the opposite party has presented in their written submission. The speaker refers to the relevant pages of written submission.
12:03	With each question probed by the judges, the courtroom becomes more and more charged, like a battleground of legal wit and intellect.
12:06	As the time ticks away, the judges continue to ask questions, seeking to clarify certain points and test the strength of the arguments presented.
12:10	The judges seem satisfied with the speaker’s response but they continue to hound the speaker with questions like a hailstrom of inquiries.
12:12	The speaker moves to present the second issue and as the minutes tick by, the judges become increasingly engaged, presenting the speaker with questions one after another.
12:16	The courtroom falls silent as the court clerk signals the end of the allotted time for the speaker’s arguments. The speaker pleads for extension but the judges do not permit.
12:18	The rebuttal phase has commenced. The first speaker from the informants side has taken the floor and and is presenting arguments to refute opposite party’s case. She asked for clarification with respect to the relevance of case law they mentioned. The speaker from opposite party is now presenting counter-arguments to the points raised by the speaker during their submissions.
12:22	The judges are giving feedback on the performances of the participants. They provide both positive feedback and constructive criticism. They commend the participants on their knowledge of the law and their ability to present arguments effectively. At the same time, they point out areas where the participants could improve, such as clarity of expression and more effective use of evidence.
12:24	The curtains have drawn on the semi-final rounds, with well-crafted submissions and thought-provoking questions.

Court Room 2

10:32	There are only four remaining teams out of a total of thirty-eight, and the battle is starting to take form.There is sky-high anticipation among the squads as they all keep their sights set on the grand reward.
10:34	The distinguished panel of judges settles in for what promises to be a thrilling round. The squads look positively radiant and overflowing with enthusiasm.
10:36	The counsel for the informant party takes the dais, as the weather chills, and begins to establish their side of the case, only to be met with pointed inquiries from the bench.
10:42	In order to make their case, the counsel answers the bench’s probing inquiries with incisive responses. The explanations provided by the counsel appear to have pleased the bench. Uncommon to see such a thing!
10:48	The last ten minutes of the time have brought an interesting exchange between the counsel and the bench. With great care, the counsel makes a crucial point to their cause.

10:54	There are only five minutes left on the clock when the bench asks the counsel a difficult question that places her in an intriguing situation of complete stillness.
10:56	The informant party is put in a difficult position by the bench, who shift the pressure on them. Tune in to find out if they manage to escape this sticky situation.
10:59	The counsel shows fortitude and resolve to get out of the jam, and crosses his fingers for his co-counsel to deliver a home run. The co-counsel is calm and composed before the honorable bench.
11:01	The poise of the co-counsel is interjected by a pointed question by the bench that puts her in a tough position but the counsel answers the question with utmost grace and establishes her case.
11:05	The Counsel with great poise further establishes their case with a sense of calmness. The mood in the courtroom is uplifted by a set of quickfire questions and answers that take place between the bench and the counsel.
11:09	With minutes running down the clock, the counsel is shuffling through the papers to establish their case and conviction in the courtroom.
11:16	A tense debate between the bench and the counsel has brought the temperature in the courtroom up. The counsel remains unfazed by the questions posed by the bench.

11:18	The bench asks the counsel to wrap up their arguments in a clear and concise manner which results in a sense of anticipation among the opposing party. Before the prayer by the informant party the bench put a series of questions.
11:24	After the informant side has finished praying to the bench, the opposite party takes the dais with a collected demeanor and begins to present their case.
11:28	The bench interrupts the opposing party’s attempts to take down the informant’s side of the arguments, the opposing party continues, with adequate responses to the bench’s questions.
11:35	As the pressure mounts, the counsel prepares himself before responding to the bench’s trap queries. The Counsel answers the questions sincerely and proceeds further to establish their case.
11:37	The exchange between the counsel and the bench provides valuable inputs to the court.
11:40	The counsel establishes the third issue in contention before the bench and tries to establish his supremacy over the informant party.
11:42	The counsel’s answers result in a sense of assurance and calmness in the opposing party and nervousness on the side of the informants.
11:44	The proceedings move further raising the intrigue in the courtroom as simultaneously the clock runs down upon the opposing party resulting in a sense of urgency.
11:46	The time is up for the counsel of the opposing party as he passes the baton to the co-counsel. The time arrives for the co-counsel to present his arguments.
11:47	The co-counsel begins with the arguements in a strong body language and aims to stamp their case before the court.
11:50	The counsel pleads ignorance before the honorable bench and moves past the mistake made.
11:51	With a great sense of calm, the counsel stands firm agains the pointing questions posed by the bench and answers them in great detail.
11:53	The counsel is shaken by the bench as their questions incite a sense of urgency in the opposing party camp.
11:56	Their is judicial utilization of time by the counsel while replying to the bench as he is questioned upon “reasonable time.”
11:58	The bench asks the counsel to summarise their arguments in a concise manner as they question the knowledge of the counsel concerning a pertinent point essential to the case.
12:00	With ten minutes remaining upon the clock, the counsel with a sense of urgency shuffles through the papers in order to establish the dominance of their side.

12:03	The bench is content with the replies provided by the counsel, which is a rare sight in a tense courtroom usually.
12:07	With just two minutes left on the clock, the counsel moves forward with the prayer before the honourable court for the grant of relief.
12:08	The bench invites the parties to rebuttals and final submissions as it provides a final chance to the parties to submit their side of the case.
12:12	Informant party starts strong with sharp rebuttals to the arguments made by the opposing party and looks forward for the answers by the opposing party.
12:13	Counsel finishes strong with satisfactory rebuttals while shifting the burden upon the opposing party and gives an assurance to the infromants’ side.
12:16	The opposing party lays concise replies to the rebuttals as the counsel looks undeterred even after the astute questioning by the informats’ side.
12:20	With the final rebuttals and submissions, the proceedings of the court come to a closure. The competition really lives up to the mark and the judges are content with the arguments.

Final Rounds

14:17 PM	After enduring the gruelling semi-finals, the winning teams have returned to the final rounds with newfound vigor and determination. The spectators, on the edge of their seats, could feel the electricity in the air as they waited for the judges to enter and the competition to begin.
14:22 PM	And we, lucky enough to be witnesses to this incredible event, were poised to capture every moment of the action as these teams fought tooth and nail for victory. So hold onto your seats and get ready for a thrilling ride to the finish line – this is going to be a competition for the ages!
14:23 PM	As the judges enter the audience hall, the participants huddle over their notes, their eyes filled with determination and sweat beads trickling down their foreheads, one question echoes in their minds – will their countless hours of research, practice, and sleepless nights pay off?
14:24 PM	The Informant side solicits permission to approach the dais, to which the bench gladly agrees. She talks about the structure of her arguments. Her unwavering conviction and determination catches the attention of the hall.
14:27 PM	Armed with structured arguments and sheer logic, the counsel is able to sway the judges. She outrightly gets to the contention, by navigating the pillars of her arguments, which eventually invites the line of questioning from the bench, as she delves into the case study, while expounding upon the appreciable adverse affects on competition.
14:30 PM	After giving an unconvinced sight, the bench jumps into another volley of probing questions, which makes the counsel sweat under pressure & strive to defend the case.

14:33 PM	After facing the brunt of grilling, the counsel continues with her submissions in gusto. She musters all her energy in order to bolster her stance. Soon after, she welcomes a barrage of questioning from the bench, which she answers by painting a vivid picture of facts of the case and delving into statistics.
14:35 PM	The bench directly goes to question the authority of the arguments, put forward by the counsel. ‘Legal basis’ becomes the bone of contention. The line of questioning continues. The counsel resorts to the competent authorities to substantiate her stance.
14:38 PM	As the counsel takes the floor, they highlight the turbulent nature of the market, bringing to the forefront its unpredictability and rapid fluctuations. The discourse then delves into the monopolistic tendencies of certain key players in the market, shedding light on their unwavering control and unparalleled dominance, using analogies to relate it to Playflix’s dominance.
14:41 PM	As the counsel presents her argument, she bolsters her case by citing pertinent laws and regulations. However, her reference to the law does not go unchallenged, as the bench questions the applicability and interpretation of said law. The back-and-forth between the counsel and the bench ensues, as they seek to reconcile their different perspectives and arrive at a mutually agreeable conclusion.

14:43 PM	Despite the looming deadline and time constraints rendered by the court master, the bench unanimously agrees to grant an extension, recognizing the importance of exploring the issue of ‘predatory pricing’ in depth. The counsel continues to articulate their points with renewed vigor, backed by the knowledge that their arguments have captivated the attention of the bench.
14:46 PM	The bench scrutinizes the alleged abuse of dominance by the parties involved. The counsel adeptly handles the barrage of questions, showcasing their intellectual prowess and command over the subject matter. As the line of questioning intensifies, the counsel confidently refers to Section 18 of the Competition Act, leading to the nod of the bench as they are impressed by the extensive knowledge and quick thinking of the counsel.
14:48 PM	The counsel concludes her submissions and the bench renders a wide smile in approval. The co-counsel takes up the dais, and furthers the issues of the case. The intricacies of the facts and detailed analysis of the fact sheet are provided by the co-counsel.

14:50 PM	As the co-counsel takes over, she adopts a strategic approach to strengthen her position. She refers to persuasive case laws and her own well-crafted written submissions, compellingly building her case and establishing a firm ground. With each reference to the relevant case law and submission, the co-counsel leaves an indelible mark on the proceedings, earning the respect and admiration of the bench.
14:54 PM	The bench keenly observes the co-counsel’s arguments and identifies a key fallacy in their reasoning. With a sharp eye for detail, the bench points out the inconsistency and brings to light the differences in the facts of the case. The line of questioning rapidly transforms into counter-questioning, as the bench probes the co-counsel to reconcile the discrepancy in their argument.
14:56 PM	Undeterred, the co-counsel rises to the occasion, adroitly addressing the concerns raised by the bench and defending their position with renewed zeal. The courtroom buzzes with anticipation as the back-and-forth between the co-counsel and the bench continues to unfold with questions of quality versus pricing offered by the competitors.

14:59 PM	As the counsel reclaims the floor, they recognize the concerns raised by the bench and seeks to address them head-on. Drawing upon the arguments presented by their co-counsel, the counsel deftly weaves together a response that effectively addresses the issue at hand. The counsel’s astute referencing of their co-counsel’s arguments showcases their ability to work collaboratively as a team, highlighting their unified approach to the case.
15:01 PM	The counsel’s answer seems to have satisfied the bench, but the question burgeons, and she seems to answer it unfazed, her eyes gleaming with confidence, still the bench leaves no stone unturned and continues with their interrogations. The co-counsel answers diligently, as she establishes the current contract to fall under the purview of a certain clause of the Competition Act.
15:04 PM	As the co-counsel resumes her address to the bench, she skillfully focuses on the contractual and privacy aspects of the case. Armed with a well-researched memo and a plethora of citations, the co-counsel meticulously lays out her argument. The bench listens with rapt attention, as the co-counsel builds up a compelling case, buttressed by an array of legal precedents and authoritative sources. However, the questions from the bench continue on.

15:09 PM

The audience hall’s atmosphere gets filled with palpable tension as the questioning becomes heated. The bench is quick to raise doubts about the applicability of the comparison as the co-counsel brings up the reference of the telecommunication sector, and questions the counsel’s contention. With the merciless grilling, the bench is generous enough to grant an extension of time to the co-counsel. “If I were you, and I threw mud at two faces, it would have stuck on one- right?” With this note, one of the judge’s lightened the air of the courtroom, as the informant side concluded its arguments.

15:12	With the conclusion of the arguments furthered by the informants, eager eyes and ears await opposite party’s contentions. A swath of legal luminaries, academicians and aspirants dot the auditorium of HNLU. The opposite party, apprehensive of the bench’s explosive questioning, hesitantly approach the dais on the grant of bench’s permission.
15:16	After explaining the nuances of her speech, the first speaker from the opposite party was required to bring forth any relevant fact to the notice of the bench. The bench first started their intensive rounds of questioning on sharing of burden between the parties. The speaker, caught off-guard, nervously attempts to answer, establishing the structure of the argument advanced.
15:20	On being examined on the procedural requirements to be adhered by the parties, the speaker confidently answers the questions- swaying the bench in agreement. While referring to the intricacies of the production line of the parties adjudicated by the Competition Commission, the speaker’s calm manner of arguing seem to lighten the tension-filled courtroom.

15:24	The bench scrutinises the justifications furthered by the speaker which is adeptly answered with the use of relevant case-laws and statutes only to be counter-questioned by the bench in disagreement over the password sharing dispute pertaining to the case. The bench, now satisfied by the party’s response, prompt the speaker to proceed further.
15:28	The judges, seeming relaxed and well pleased with the justifications furnished, nod in agreement as the speaker supplements her argument with indices, and relevant case laws placidly convincing the bench of the merit in her case.

15:32	The bench questioned the relevance of the indices furnished by the speaker in her arguments, which is skillfully answered, outlining the gradations in the documents submitted before the bench. The bench’s apparent silence sans any questions relieve the opposite party.
15:36	A laughter wafts across the auditorium as a member of the bench expresses ignorance to the contemporary cinematic knowledge. The bench grants an extension of 1 minute to the speaker to conclude her argument, which is respectfully declined, much to the surprise of the audience. The bench seemingly pleased with the confidence projected by the speaker, appreciates her.

15:40

The second speaker approaches the dais to continue the line of argument. The speaker eloquently underscoring the market share and the dominance enjoyed by the informant party, also contends that the present case, while not being a case of anti-competitive practices, will eventually help in promoting the economy of the country, thus making it pro-competitive.

15:44	A long due question by the bench investigates the purported business strategy of the opposite party, which is adroitly answered by the speaker while touching upon the contemporary examples which are recieved by the bench positively.
15:48	The bench differs from the speaker on the intricacies of the technology used by the parties to the dispute to which the speaker prompts the bench to refer to the submission. However, another member judge, seconds his fellow judge as he clarifies the question. Much to the content of the bench, the speaker cleverly explains the definition of “relevant market” in coherence to the benefit of the party.
15:52	The speaker attempts to justify the conduct of the opposite party as not being in contravention of competitive practises and refers to the fact sheet, strengthening her case. In contrast to the first limb of the final rounds, the atmosphere in the courtroom appears rather calm with the bench sporadically questioning the speaker only to receive answers in a structured manner.

15:56	While the court clerks anxiously gaze at their watches, the speaker proceeds with her concluding remarks. With the closure of opposite party’s arguments, the informant speaker approaches the bench to present their rebuttal in a four pronged structure. The rebuttal of the informant party wraps up with a question from the bench to which the speaker pleads ignorance.
16:00	The opposite party engaging in the reply to the rebuttal was well received by the bench. As the round comes to an end, so does the visibility due to power failure.

Valedictory Ceremony

16:44	The Valedictory Ceremony of the 13th CCI-HNLU National Moot Court Competition is underway. The hosts welcome the guests and introduce the flow of the ceremony.
16:45	The Chief Guest for the ceremony is Acting Chief Justice of the Chattisgarh High Court Hon’ble Justice Goutam Bhaduri along with Prof. (Dr). Ranbir Singh, Mr. Bharat Budholia, Mr. Ved Prakash Mishra, Mr. R. Muralidharan, Prof (Dr.) David Ambrose gracing the august ceremony as guests of honour.
16:48	The Registrar of the University, Prof. (Dr.) Uday Shankar, delivers the welcome address for the guests, and introduces them to the audience.
16:52	The Organising Secretary of this year’s competition, Prof. (Dr.) Anindhya Tiwari, has been invited to present the report of the competition. This edition has been a special one, since the University celebrates its 20th Anniversary. After 3 years of the competition being relegated to the online mode, this edition the competition marked the first offline event. The Competition witnessed teams from 16 States and Union Territories, who vied for victory. The panel of judges comprised a cohort of experts including corporate law practitioners, associates, partners, advocates, and academicians.