Latest blog entries - Legally India Thu, 17 Apr 2014 23:53:52 +0530 Joomla! - Open Source Content Management en-gb The Road to 'Social Emergency' - Women's Rights in Iraq in peril

Please believe that this is an example of a complete mockery of what law means and what position it holds in a civilized society. It is a habit, being a law student, to cite legal authorities in opining about anything, but well, if you are aware of this whole thing that is going on, I think you’d even agree with what a layman says. What is the purpose of a law? Simply, it is a disciplinarian, its main job being to settle a dispute. But in Iraq, we see a contrasting picture. This is regarding the Jaafari Personal Status Law, which is a pending legislation in Iraq right now and any minute now, the Iraqi Council of Representatives can vote to make this bill enforceable. Astonishingly, this draft actually was submitted to the parliament for vote by Iraq’s Justice Minister, Hassan al-Shimari.

The pending legislation has pulled down the social status of the main law that the original law had enjoyed till date.  The bill has set the minimum age for females for marriage as nine and that of males, fifteen, but provides that the age limit can be lowered with the consent of the guardian, father or grandfather. This bill allows polygamy without any kind of condition and, gives men the ‘right’ to have sex with their wives anytime they want, thus legalizing sexual slavery. The wives would not be able to leave marital home without permission. These provisions, namely Article 16, 104, 101, 126 and 63 go against Iraqi laws and UN conventions, regarding laws on women and children, which Iraq had ratified on human rights.

This law actually legalizes marital rape. It affects constitutionally protected rights of women and children. A part of the Preamble of their Constitution that has been in force since 2005 says –

“We, the people of Iraq, who have just risen from our stumble, and who are looking with confidence to the future through a republican, federal, democratic, pluralistic system, have resolved with the determination of our men, women, elderly, and youth to respect the rule of law, to establish justice and equality, to cast aside the politics of aggression, to pay attention to women and their rights, the elderly and their concerns, and children and their affairs, to spread the culture of diversity, and to defuse terrorism.”

Please have a look at the underlined part. Now correlating it with this contemporary event the competency of the legislature can surely be questioned, that how on earth, a legislature can even take up such a bill into account which is in violation of the basic structure of the law of the land. Article 30(1) of their constitution states –

“The State shall guarantee to the individual and the family - especially children and womensocial and health security, the basic requirements for living a free and decent life, and shall secure for them suitable income and appropriate housing.”

Again, I’d pull the reader’s attention to the highlighted parts. This bill, by allowing marital rape and sexual slavery, totally negates the significance of the above constitutional provision. In no way does it ensure a decent life.

Al-Shimmari says, “By introducing this draft law, we want to limit or prevent such practices” which, prima facie, can be understood to be utterly illogical.

Leave all that. Think of the risk the women and children in their society are at. This ruling party (Fadila Party) has become hell bent on passing this law so that it results in increasing their chances in the general elections. But this is most unlikely to happen. The scream to this bill is taking a louder shape in Iraq by and by and also, internationally. But the offensive cannot be avoided, at the same time. Suppose their legislature passes this bill. It can also be well expected that the justice delivery process shall be distorted with the advent of an advanced level of administrative discretion, and political discontentment because this law will lead to the establishments of Shiites courts thus making the other sects form their own courts, which would finally result in a quake in the legal system of the country. And obviously, for their apex court to declare the law ultra-vires, would take some time because in accordance with procedures, even a single case has to, first of all, reach the court. Till then, will the nation have to endure a social emergency? 

Read More]]> (sourjyadas) Uncategorized Thu, 17 Apr 2014 11:24:00 +0530
And miles to go before I sleep: Of sharks and survival at national law universities I guess Robert Frost while writing this had some sort of idea of what life is like. And this holds true for life in law school as well. There are promises to be kept, deadlines to be met.

When I was giving my entrances, I had a very rosy picture in mind about the life in the best of the National Law Universities. I prayed fervently and put in my best efforts to get into one of these. And finally, 8 months into one of these very National Law Universities; I wondered if it was all worth it.

I had a vague idea about what it would be like from an article in the editorial section of The Hindu which had made me rethink my decision which I had taken in a whimsical mood as a young teenager. This article mentioned the highly competitive environment of the NLUs and students falling into all sorts of inappropriate situations when they failed to perform well. In this case, I feel I am fortunate as the atmosphere is well moderated and the students can distinguish to an ample degree between right and wrong.

One of the things that I don't appreciate in my college is what we call the 'Law School Shark Syndrome' (LS3). This is typically characterized by people lying about their progress in studies, mooting and other fields to their peers to get ahead of them. I have come to realize that this might be the case in general and is prevalent in almost all law schools. But the situation, in my opinion is saddening. There are other aspects as well- intelligence is adjudged on the basis of your GPA and you will be branded dumb in no time if you fail to score well, or be tagged or classified in a world which is eager to define and group anything and anyone it comes across.

Standardized opinions, alienation, cut throat competition may as well be a sort of training for our future professions, but I feel differently.I don’t think backstabbing and pulling others down is the ultimate instrument for gaining ground in this profession.

If I am sure about myself, I’ll never have to pull back anyone to move ahead.

Intimidation may be natural in the first few months and you may come across people who would make you feel under confident or uncertain about yourself. Having faith in yourself and the belief that you can achieve your aim is the key to success and survival. You need to be at peace with yourself and the rest will fall into place.

It is one of the most crucial lessons I am in the process of learning while I am here at this campus. You never know what life holds for you after 5 years of Law School. You will never know what you are capable of until you try.

What others do or how well they do it should not occupy or worry us. Concentrating on our own performance will inevitably reap us better dividends.

The stress levels in Law School can be and will be very high. There is a lot of pressure that you might burden yourself with. This is where striking the balance comes into play.

Do not take your studies lightly even in the first semester (talking from experience) but do not overdo it as well. Do not burn yourself up. It is a marathon, not a sprint. Explore new avenues and build up on your USPs. Mooting and Debating is good but it is not the end of the world. You will be provided with ample opportunities to end up as a better person with a well developed personality.

Being in law school is rewarding experience as well. One will get to interact with illustrious personalities in the field and outside it. Eminent politicians, lawyers, academicians and journalists will make frequent visits. Interacting with them help you gain a better perspective and widen your horizon. It is a very enriching experience. There is a great amount of exposure and learning happening all through and also, they teach us how to work hard and keep our commitments.

You will make genuine friends and learn to enjoy life along the way. It would feel like a second home to you once you find your place in the sea of people that is Law School.

And in the end, I am sure you would have lived and it would all have been worth it.

I would like to end by saying that looking back now; I have the urge to quote these lines from Green Day’s song Good Riddance- It’s something unpredictable but in the end it’s right, I hope you had the time of your life!

Read More]]> (Shambhavi9) Student life Wed, 09 Apr 2014 10:57:00 +0530
6 things you must watch out for when briefing external counsel The last post "Top 5 things to be taken care of while hiring an external counsel' was on hiring of the counsel. Now it is the time for briefing..

Many a time briefing the external counsel is a challenge. Especially if you are asked to do so at the last moment for a crucial litigation.

An external counsel is beyond your internal code of conduct. He could ask for any paper which is not privy to you. He could criticize any action taken by the management. and..well.. the fate of conference is largely depends his mood of the day.

Attending a conference without preparation is suicidal.. It’s always better to bunk the session if you haven't (experience makes a lawyer wise). There are at least three irreparable risks attached to going without preparation:

(a)    you will cut a sorry figure before a bunch of junior lawyers sitting with Senior (long term damage).

(b)    the counsel may share your 'helplessness' with your boss(es) in a party. He may forget then; but your boss may not.

(c)    the fate of the case in hand.

Therefore, prepare well before the conference.

In my view, at least, you should consider the following aspects before Briefing:  

  1.       FAQ (Frequently Anticipated Questions) keep a list of FAQ and its answers. Empathy helps (its okay for lawyers also         to attend some HR training some time) 
  2.      Analysis:  Ask, discuss & understand the operational issues in the matter. Sit with concerned teams & listen, make          notes. Take them with you, if required. It’s always better than fumbling. It also helps in sharing the responsibility; 
  3.      Punctual: Be well in time ("even if you are ten minutes early; still you are five minutes late" a Chinese Proverb)  
  4.      Systematic Keep all documents ready with extra copies. Nothing better, if you could make a file with a chronological        history. (Courtesy of PSU experiences)
  5.      Honesty: avoid bluffing; make it clear that you don't have an answer/document at this moment; but it is being               served. It is the most appropriate gesture; Nobody is expecting you to carry everything.. and a bonus point…
  6.      Never discuss the office politics with an external counsel.

Read More]]> (Rafeeque) Legal argument Wed, 09 Apr 2014 06:32:00 +0530
SC causelist turns unlucky lawyer into gang-rape-accused aqzb0kr5

@CourtWitness1 spots this rather unfortunate formatting snafu in tomorrow’s Supreme Court causelist, turning an unlucky advocate into an apparent instigator of the horrific village-kangaroo-court-ordered gang rape.

A cautionary tale for any litigators who might have thought corporate lawyers’ document formatting obsession served no purpose other than to rack up bills...

Read More]]> (courtwitness1) Life as a qualified lawyer Thu, 27 Mar 2014 23:27:12 +0530
Top 5 things to take care of when hiring external counsel Today, without the help of an external counsel, you cannot run an in-house legal team. 

In litigation it is essential and in advisory it is preferable.    

Choosing of a counsel is a tricky affair.

A wrong choice may take you for a toss and you may be sandwiched between the top management and the counsel.

In my view, at least, you should consider the following aspects before the appointment. 

1. Policy

Check whether internal standard operating procedures (SOP) / policy guidelines are available for such appointments. If yes, adhere to it. Take a prior approval for an exclusion, if it is an exceptional case. This would ease the payment processes;

2. Experience

Gather the experience and expertise of the counsel vis-a-vis your case in hand; You can't choose an IPR lawyer for a real estate due diligence! Ensure that the counsel's office doesn't have a "Conflict of Interest"

3. Availability

You can't afford a counsel who is stuck up in another meeting while you are at his/her chamber for a pre-decided conference; you can't either tolerate a counsel who doesn't pick up your call or forget to give you a return call

4. Confidentiality

Confirm that the data you are going to share with counsel would remain confidential; (I was told that a client has changed her lawyer because the counsel did not have a private email - he was using a public domain email)

5. Counsel's office

Ensure that the counsel has an office with all required facilities (communication, meeting, fax, scan etc.,) Don't run for a photo copy to the next shop at the neck of a moment...

Read More]]> (Rafeeque) Legal argument Thu, 27 Mar 2014 18:35:57 +0530
No Country for Ethical Business Men In a world fraught with greed, temptation, confusion, discontent and inertia amongst the leaders, there is very little hope for an ethical entrepreneur. The reality is that the very foundation of ethics in business that is the regulations, rules and the regulators are mostly hollow. I say this especially because of my observations of the highly regulated and extremely significant telecom sector, which not only covers the telephone lines but extends to all forms of technology and communication including the internet, cloud networks, software applications etc.

I have heard, witnessed and felt the grief of many entrepreneurs. Reviewed the regulations repeatedly to find solutions to the conundrum they are in, only to reach the conclusion that the regulations are a problem in themselves. They have been written in cryptic language with most often than not, very limited means to find out what they truly mean. An appointment with the rule maker would mean that you will meet many different officers, with many different views. A request for a written clarification which would involve formation of an opinion will be either ignored or denied.

The problem

Most of the regulators are aware of the technological advancements, but in my view they lack the pace and don’t seem prepared or motivated enough to carry the weight of bringing about the much needed change in order to support the era of technological advancement.

I often hear that the problem with technology in India is that the regulations are far behind the technological advancements, but after a recent incident where I saw the courage in a bunch of young entrepreneurs dwindle because of the dark cloud of regulations over them, I realized that the real problem lies not in the regulations, but in the regulators. The regulators hold within them the power to change, but despite being aware of the problems in their sector, they have conceded to the unwritten rule of not giving anything in writing.  In the existing system there is no room for  reformers, the shakers, the change – makers and the heroes.

The consequence

In a sector where there is a lot of grey and very little black or white, an invisible line between right or wrong, differential treatment towards different stakeholders and many brilliant minds, the only ones that I suspect will survive are the ones who will cross the line to the other side. The unethical side.

This one is a dedication to the people who inspired me to write this piece. You are all heroes. Keep your freedom.         

Read More]]> (pritika) News and current affairs Wed, 26 Mar 2014 16:18:41 +0530
LiveBlog of the 1st NLUO-MLMCC, 2014

Hello & welcome to the live-blog of the 1st edition of National Law University Odisha's Maritime Law Moot Court Competition! Over a span of three days, teams from all across the nation will battle it out to win the title of the 'Maritime Law Masters'. The dates for the Competition are set for 21st of March to 23rd March, 2014 and we will be updating you on all that goes down right here! 



The results of the Finals will be released in the Valedictory Ceremony scheduled to start at about 5:30 PM.

The Valedictory ceremony is underway and the results will be uploaded as soon as they are announced. Stay tuned for more! 

The Results

Winner: National Law Institute University (NLIU), Bhopal take 20,000 INR home

Runners up: National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR), Hyderabad take 12,000 INR home

Best Speaker: Akansha Singh from Jindal Global Law School (JGLS), Sonipat takes 5,000 INR home

Best Memorial: National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Kochi take 5,000 INR home

The Organizing Committee congratulates the participants on their brilliant performance!! 



The list of teams participating in the 1st NLUO- Maritime Law Moot Court Competition are,

  1. NUALS, Kochi
  2. RGNUL, Patiala
  3. NALSAR, Hyderabad
  4. NUJS, Kolkata
  5. NLIU, Bhopal
  6. GNLU, Gandhinagar
  7. ILS, Pune
  8. Campus Law Center, DU, New Delhi
  9. JGLS, Sonipat
  10. SVKM, Mumbai
  11. UPES, Dehradun
  12. SOEL, Chennai
  13. Nirma, Ahmedabad
  14. SLS Noida
  15. AMU, Faculty of Law, Aligarh
  16. VIPS, Delhi
  17. SLS, Cochin
  18. MLC, Cuttack
  19. TNNLS, Trichy


We thank our sponsors for backing us throughout the event. This Competition is powered by Paradip Port Trust as the Title Sponsor alongwith Dhamra Port Company Limited (JV of Larsen & Toubro and Tata Steel) as the Event Partner and SCC-Online Eastern Book Company Pvt. Ltd. as the Knowledge Partner.

The full photo album will be accessible in a day or two, on the following links,

There are going to be three sessions of prelims & the first one begins at 9:30 AM sharp.


The Court-room drama unfolds!

10:20 AM

 The match-ups for the 1st session are,

  1. ILS, Pune v MLC, Cuttack
  2. VIPS, Delhi v SOEL, Chennai
  3. TNNLS, Trichy v GNLU, Gandhinagar
  4. UPES, Dehradun v NALSAR, Hyderabad
  5. NUALS, Kochi v CLC, Delhi
  6. Symbiosis, Noida v NUJS, Kolkata
  7. RGNUL, Patiala v SVKM Pravin Gandhi College of Law, Mumbai

The rounds are already underway and details are to follow soon

10:30 AM

Court-room 1: ILS & MLC are locking horns in this room with ILS, Pune as the Petitioners having started the oral submissions. The first speaker is calm, a trait that will do her well considering the fact that the Judges started grilling her on questions of law even before the statement of facts. So far, she seems to have satisfied the judges with their queries and has faltered only on one judgment, the facts of which she couldn't properly describe.

Court-room 7: 10 minutes into the round, the petitioner, RGNUL, Patiala is still being grilled on the merits of the case. The Judges want an answer as to how the Court can venture into fact finding on merits when the Order has been passed otherwise.

10:45 AM

Court-room 3: The Team from TNNLS is trying its best to answer the queries of the Judges. However, there seems to be some discrepancy between the oral and written submissions. It's a crucial time for the second speaker as this can be the 'make-or-break' moment for them. Latter portion is witnessing more questions on facts of the case than law.

Court-room 2: VIPS, Delhi have given their best and their submissions have ended. The respondents, SOEL Chennai have started presenting their case and their style of argumentation is pretty agressive. No clue as to how the Judges will mark this one.


One of the Teams hearing their opponents out!

Court-room 4: Speaker 1 from UPES seems well-prepared but nerves got the better of him, with jurisidiction coming out to be the sole point of focus across many courtrooms. The second speaker kept things to the point and judges follow through with an intense discussion with the speaker .The team from NALSAR cites a recent case at the onset of submissions; judges seem satisfied. Speaker refers to notes frequently, but is a confident speaker.

Court-room 5: Speakers from NUALS speaks with overtones of confidence and hardwork and judges seem delighted to see the answers being responded to, without any referral to the written submissions. The speakers from CLC, DU responded with every ounce of panache but intense grilling led them off-track towards the end of their speeches.

Court room 6: SLS Noida is a team in a hurry. Speaker seems logical & gives impression of complete control, having answered every question reassuringly. NUJS is riddled with a volley of questions. Speaker falters, but recovers everytime.

The first session has come to an end, with many a ship hitting the rocks while some managed to navigate safely. The second session will begin in some time. Ready the warships!

Session 2- The match-ups for this session are,

  1. SLS Cochin v ILS, Pune
  2. JGLS, Sonipat v VIPS, Delhi
  3. NIRMA, Ahmedabad v TNNLS, Trichy
  4. NLIU, Bhopal v UPES, Dehradun
  5. AMU, Aligarh v NUALS, Kochi
  6. SVKM Pravin Gandhi College of Law v SLS Noida 

12:10 PM

The rounds for the second session have just started.

Court-room 3: Quite some action in this one as the speaker from Nirma asked to state prayer in the opening minutes of her submission. This left the speaker flustered. All depends on how she handles things henceforth. 

Court-room 6: The scene here is completely different from others. SVKM Pravin Gandhi College of Law has taken an assertive stand & the juges are patiently hearing him out. 

Court-room 4: Time has been given importance here and the first speaker from NLIU has had to answer a lot of questuions on Contract Law which was the bone of contention throughout her arguments. She was asked to summarize and now the second speaker is picking up from where she left.

12:30 PM

Court-room 1: Nobody seems to be clear on the point of jurisdiction here as both the speakers submitted to the Court that they won't be dealing with it. The Judges spent some time explaining the importance of the same and this might reflect on the marks of SLS, Cochin. For now, the speakers from ILS, Pune have begun their submissions and are doing a satisfactory job with the specifics of law and facts.

Court-room 5: Intense arguments flowing from the judges to the speakers and vice-versa. The team from AMU has so far been unable to substantiate their issues but they are holding on to their ground. The Judges are very meticulous and pointing out the minutest of errors.

Court-room 4: The respondent from UPES is spewing authorities and what's more, he seems to well-versed with the facts of each & every one of them. The Judges are impressed with the co-relation of facts in the present matter and facts of the cases they've cited.

Court-room 6: All's not well here as the team from SVKM had to face a tough time during the latter half. Jurisdiction again came to haunt them & continued till the second speech as well. Also, an attempt to mock the other team did not go down well with the judges who made the team concede on some material facts. 

Definitely the courtroom to be in. Respondents bludgeon through convincingly. The courtroom is dynamic; judges are keen on seeking a practical solution to the problem and are involving both teams simultaneously. 

12:50 PM

Court-room 7: The soft-spoken Judges are pulling off a Francis Underwood and are trying to make the team from Jindal concede to certain issues but JGLS has kept its battle-guns ready; one definitely gets the impression that there has been some critical fore-thought to the answers.

Respondents from VIPS started on a shaky note but have managed to come on course.

Court-room 5: As reported earlier, the Judges of this courtroom are very particular on law and are not allowing any leeway on the same. The team from NUALS is a facing a tough time keeping up with the Judges' expectations but has succeeded in maintaining composure.  

1:15 PM

The second session has also come to an end at this juncture. All the teams are now proceeding for a group photo-shoot, essentially a pictorial souvenir from NLUO to all the participants.

1:30 PM

Lunch follows for the participants, and instantly serves as a ready break for participants to catch their breath in the midst of a very busy morning. Some use it to get some rest, while others are raring to go and have taken the break to prepare on some final details.

Third Session

The Third Session will be beginning shortly. The match-ups for the same are,

  1. MLC, Cuttack v SLS, Cochin
  2. SOEL, Chennai v RGNUL, Patiala
  3. GNLU, Gandhinagar v JGLS, Sonipat
  4. NALSAR, Hyderabad v Nirma, Ahmedabad
  5. CLC, Delhi v NLIU, Bhopal
  6. NUJS, Kolkata v AMU, Aligarh

3:30 PM

Court-room 6: Some really brilliant arguments from the team NUJS on issues of 'causal link' & 'jurisdiction'. The judges seem to have taken a back-seat and are letting the counsel lead the arguments at his own pace.

Things have started going downhill for NUJS now or atleast that's what appears from the faces on the Bench. 


AMU shoot themselves in the foot as an error catches the eye of the Judge and they have some explaining to do. 

Court-room 5: Proactive is a small word for the Judges of this Courtroom. There has been a volley of questions from the Bench and the speakers of CLC, Delhi have been left speechless on multiple occassions. The last we heard, one of the Judges tried to confuse the team on points of fact but the team navigated through that one. However, points of law especially 'amendment of contract' seems to be the central focus and both the speakers have been unable to answer it satisfactorily.


As earlier reported, the Bench does not spare NLIU either. Regular quips in addition to the barrage of questions have kept the teams at their heels and has made it a test of nerves for them. 

Quips continue well into Rebuttals. 

Court-room 3: The second speaker from GNLU employed an interesting ploy. He's gone on record to say that he's not satisfied with a particular argument advanced by his co-counsel & he'll be further elaborating on it. The Judges chuckled but it might prove to be his day as they are attentively listening to it as Jindal looks on.


JGLS has begun with their contentions and confidence seems to be their mantra. This is holding them in good stead as the Judges are firing questions and their facial expressions are not suggestive of a positive response to the answers.

Court-room 4: NALSAR is facing off Nirma in this one. The Judges have given a tough time to the team from NALSAR with one of the Judges giving the team from down South a tough time for being confused on facts. In this moment of panic, an argument was made for military intervention in the high seas and this further added fuel to the fire. Somebody needs to do their homework & a lot of ground still needs to be covered.


It's now Nirma's turn to face the heat as the Judges step on the thermostat. Speaker makes valiant efforts to hold her ground, but its becoming difficult. 

Court-room 1: Jurisdiction again becomes the thorn, much to the dread of the applicants. The local team, MLC is squaring off against SLS, Cochin in this courtroom and the Judges are relentless. They feign surprise at a particular argument presented and almost immediately begin a high-intenity salvo of questions. 

4:27 PM

The courtrooms are fast emptying as the teams and judges proceed for a break before the results are announced! Teams seem tired but excited. 

Results to be announced around 5:30 PM.

5:45 PM

Qualifying Results 

The results are out for the quarter- finals & the match-ups are,

  1. RGNUL, Patiala v NALSAR, Hyderabad
  2. NLIU, Bhopal v GNLU, Gandhinagar
  3. ILS, Pune v SLS, Noida
  4. JGLS, Sonipat v NUALS, Kochi

The rounds will begin at around 6:30 PM.

6:40 PM (Quarter Finals)

Court-room 1: RGNUL, Patiala v NALSAR, Hyderabad

The first speaker has just concluded his arguments. The heat of the quarters is already showing with the three-judge bench being very strict on any mistakes or faults on the part of the teams. One of the Judges pointed out that the cases mentioned in the oral arguments have long been over-ruled and hold no authority. Moreover, he was grilled heavily on Jurisdiction with the bench stating, "Is the Supreme Court supposed to function as a Trial Court by taking the case on merits?" Article 136 seems to be the favourite among all the Judges. Also, the delay in approaching the Supreme Court (1.5 years) to be precise is another point where the speaker had to show his presence of mind in order to wade through.

NALSAR seems to have learned its lesson from the prelims and a very changed face of NALSAR came to the fore here. They've become more confident and assertive and the Judges seem to be satisfied with their submissions. That's not to say that there have been glitches with one of the speakers being asked to reconsider her statement on one of the issues.

The rebuttals were spectacular in their own regard with the speaker from NALSAR so eager to deliver that she ended up completing the rebuttals under 30 seconds and that too in a very structured manner. Judges took note of it but will they be marked positively for this? Only time will tell.

Court-room 2: NLIU, Bhopal v GNLU, Gandhinagar

NLIU has pleaded a very reserved case with the Bench asking questions from time to time. All in all, their submissions were largely accepted. The NLIU speakers are a figure of confidence and well-preparedness. All quereies pointing out the background of various cases are answered with largely convincing answers. 


GNLU speakers are keenly intent on maintaining their composure. They remain calm, yet are constantly managing to drive home the point. Judges seem thoughtful and are questioning every authority and argument on its merit. Judges try to pile on questions but speaker clears the rubble every time. 

Court-room 3: ILS, Pune v SLS, Noida

The Moot Problem has a facet of jurisdiction which deals with the competency of Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court. Coincidentally, the team from Pune is vouching for the Bombay High Court and the team from Noida for the Delhi High Court. The speaker from ILS was asked to substantiate his submissions with authorities and so far he seems to be doing good. The tough stance employed by the Bench hasn't shaken his composure nor frayed his nerves. This, added to his thorough knowledge of the memorial and authorities rings good news for the ILS team. Unless SLS, Noida has some tricks up their sleeves, ILS might seal this one.

The speakers from the young law school of SLS, Noida were assertive and quite agressive. Both the speakers seem to have a flair for debating and that's saying a lot on their energy and aggression. However, its not been all 'smooth sailing' for them with ignorance being pleaded on being asked about the facts, in more than one instance.

Court-room 4: JGLS, Sonipat v NUALS, Kochi

A very confident and assertive start from JGLS peppered with structured arguments  & reasoned analysis. This trick seems to have worked with the Bench having switched to a "moderate" mode. However, she needs to show her mettle during the latter part of the submission where most questions will be taken up. So far, the Judges have put up questions on the competency of the Court & Public Policy. A prominent feature is that points of fact have taken a back-seat and the teams are being made to utter specific legal knowledge on various points. Lack of this is not being taken well by the Judges with them making no efforts to hide their bafflement on the same. 


For NUALS, the bench is currently a landmine. Counsel seems like he could be blown off with one wrong step. Now, it's a layrinth. Respondents do not like what's coming, but are doing a valiant job of holding up their end.


The four teams to make it through to the Semis are,

  1. NALSAR, Hyderabad
  2. NLIU, Bhopal
  3. SLS Noida
  4. JGLS, Sonipat

The match-ups for the semi-finals are,

NLIU v SLS Noida



(DAY 3; 10:30 AM)

First Semi-Final

The rounds have begun at 10:30 AM. More details coming soon. First up is NLIU v SLS Noida.

NLIU has made a confident start to the 1st round of Semi-finals. Also, we will be refraining from pointing out the questions posed to the participants as the second semi-final will be conducted after the first one with the same Bench presiding over them as well. Doing so, might be prejudicial to the interests of these participants. 

10:50 AM

The first counsel for petitioners is assaulted with questions on specifics of law & facts. This being a new bench ended up asking some of the questions that were the highlights of yesterday. However, realising that the participants have already been grilled on those aspects, the Bench was quick to adapt & has now adopted a conversant but inquisitive style of dealing with the counsels, on issues on which the petitioners have been hesitant to venture into during their oral submissions.

11:00 AM

The second counsel from NLIU has been more accomodating in the questions posed to her. She also seems to have learned the lesson from her co-counsel by keeping time a priority and not wasting much time on any one issue.

11:15 AM

The luck seems to have run over for her as the Judges are now not letting her move forward with submissions. She's been hounded with questions from all three Judges and on all aspects in the last 15 minutes. However, her confident demeanour and patience in hearing out & answering humbly might earn her points and respect from the Judges.

11:25 AM

The Submissions by NLIU have come to an end and now SLS Noida has sent their first counsel to advance their arguments.

11:30 AM

A poor start for SLS Noida as a novel argument put forth by them rejected at the outset. To quote the Judge, 'A thorough misapplication of substantial question of law by you counsel!'. The rounds are heating up & the counsel needs to be commended for holding his own in the face of heavy criticism from the Bench.

11:40 AM

The Counsel is being bludgeoned by the Bench with questions interspersed with facts of the case & the laws applicable in the case.

11:47 AM

The second counsel for SLS Noida takes the podium & humbly requests the Bench if he could loosen his tie. Though the request was denied but starting on a humourous note might lighten the atmosphere in the Court which ultimately might prove beneficial for him over the course of arguments.

11:52 AM

The second speaker is more assertive, stumbles less and seems to have learned his lessons from the mistakes of his co-counsel. Something seen during the NLIU submissions as well.

12:00 PM

To just give a taster of the kind of grilling being faced by the Counsel, we bring you this. The Counsel cites a 2011 case in order to advance an argument with the Judge asking as to which Court does the case belong to. He replies by stating that the case belongs to a UK Court to which the Judge again specifically asks for the Court. This pressure makes the Counsel to state that it's a House of Lords Judgment. The bemused Judge quips, "House of Lords in 2011!". 

12:10 PM (Rebuttals begin)

The counsel from SLS speeds up towards the end in order to cover all his issues to which the Judge promptly asks him to slow down. The rebuttals begin with NLIU's speaker taking the podium and the Judge remarking, "The rebuttals are good only if short and sweet".

The Bench keeps a firm grip on the statements made in rebuttals with no new arguments being allowed. The counsels are on a very tight leash. Wrapped under 2 minutes, the Judge was heard saying 'Next' every few seconds.

12:14 PM

The first rebuttal by SLS is met with the remark 'Nonsense' by the Bench. All hell broke loose for a few seconds. The Counsel trying his best to get back in the game.

This seems to have succeeded with the Judge having asked the Court Clerk to be given a particular authority. The rebuttals are over from the side of SLS too and the Judge pondered over the last rebuttal for some time. This just might be the silver lining which SLS is desperately hoping for.

12: 20 PM

The First Semi-Final has come to an end with this. The next Semi-Final clash of NALSAR v JGLS will start in about 20 minutes from now.

Second Semi-Final

12:50 PM 

In the words of the Bench, 'It's an all-women Bar'. Two member teams from both NALSAR & JGLS are battling it out in the second semi-final of the 1st NLUO Maritime Law Moot Court Competition, 2014. NALSAR has begun its contentions and in an all too familiar note for this competition, have had to answer queries right at the outset which are as basic as whether all High Courts have original jurisdiction or not. Her perplexed answer to this one was not satisfactory.

1:10 PM

The speaker from NALSAR kas been arguing in a consistent pace peppering her arguments with authorities in regular intervals. The Bench, kept listening for a good deal of time seemingly satisfied with the flow but during the end of her submissions, the intensity of queries multiplied exponentially.

1:20 PM

The second speaker from NALSAR has been facing a tough time from the moment she took over the podium from her co-counsel. However, this hasn't deterred her and she's giving her level best to answer the queries posed to her.

1:35 PM

The heat of the Semis is on display in the Courtroom as the second speaker is being made to answer on the basics of Contract Law, Constitutional Law & Maritime Law. The Bench wants to ensure that only the best & deserving team moves forward to the Finals.

1:42 PM (Submissions from the Respondents)

The first speaker from JGLS is calm and composed and speaks with a pleasant demeanour. However, in trying to successfully put forth her submission explaining the nexus between the facts of the case and a 2013 SC jugement, the judges ask her if she could speak for a minute without using the phrase 'due to the fact' which leaves her flustered. She takes time to recover.

1:55 PM

The speaker fumbles a bit and ends up citing an Article of the Constitution as 'Section'. This instantly attracts a quip from the Judge who asks the difference between an article & a section. The counsel is at a loss of words.

2:05 PM

The seond speaker made a good start but was asked rightaway as to whether she knew who is the regulator of insurance companies and she couldn't answer satisfactorily. The Bench has been stressing from the beginning that basic knowledge of the law even if not related to the moot proposition is important for the counsel to prove a case impeccably.

2:15 PM

As for the speaker, the recovery was good as she was able to relay facts of the cases cited by her which left the Judges impressed. However, this joy was short-lived as JGLS tried to use a concept uttered by the Judge agaisnt NALSAR but not present in their written submissions. To this, the Bench wasted no time in inquiring as to whether this submission was being made on their opinion and JGLS accepted that they had improvised on the spot. Judges pointed out that they might have been wrong.

2:20 PM

The onslaught of the Judges was not to end anytime soon. The counsel directed the Judges to a particular citation & the Judges remarked on the authority of the participants to 'direct' the Judges. Prompt apologies were delivered and the importance of Courtroom decorum was emphasized once more. 

2:25 PM

The rebuttals were fiery from the side NALSAR to say the least. She begun by remarking that arguments by JGLS were mere fiction & not based on facts. The Bench was quick to respond by asking her to stick to her arguments and not let loose statements waste her time.

JGLS kept it lucid and to the point during sur-rebuttals. They were finished in about a minute's time with having delivered their best.

NALSAR & NLIU have made it to the Finals of the 1st NLUO- Maritime Law Moot Court Competition, 2014



3:45 PM

NALSAR opens up the Finals with the first speaker putting up a confident start. However, it takes the Judges only ten seconds to open up the floodgates of questions thereby impeding her progress. Kudos to the speaker for successfully regaining the trust of the Bench after some uncomfortable questions left her visibly upset. There's been a two-pronged approach employed by the speaker in dealing with the Leviathan that is Jurisdiction. She either goes on full throttle by answering with an air of confidence that's impressive or otherwise, on realising that she might be treading on thin air, does a 'Houdini' by evading the reply through stating that issue will be dealt by her co-counsel. 



Speaker from NALSAR looks on as judges pose questions 

4:15 PM

"Whose public policy?", quip the Judges, as speaker is at pains to put forward her argument that piracy should be viewed from a broader view and an "international plane". Speaker flusters, but seems to be good at recovering lost ground. 

4:20 PM

The applicability of Section 60, Marine Insurance Act is questioned and the 'unlikelihood' of the return of the ship remains the heart of the matter at the moment. Speaker is navigating well, but seems to be heading into troubled waters as the questions are piling on. 

4:50 PM

NLIU Bhopal lead their arguments and the judges are letting the speakers control proceedings at their own pace. Speakers seem comfortable and are keeping up with the running down clock. 

4:55 PM

Judges corner speakers on one particular submission of argument that momentarily leaves the speaker with little space to move, but speaker manages to hold her ground. Bravado.

All in all, the rounds have come to a conclusion with both the teams giving short & 'to-the-point' rebuttals. There was a marked difference in the attitude of Judges in this round by letting the teams complete their arguments before posing any questions.

Both the teams have showed brilliance in their replies and 'on-the-spur' tactics employed by all four speakers is truly commendable. Whoever ends up winning the competition would have done so by a very small margin.

Results Coming Soon.


The Results

Winner: National Law Institute University (NLIU), Bhopal take 20,000 INR home

Runners up: National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR), Hyderabad take 12,000 INR home

Best Speaker: Akansha Singh from Jindal Global Law School (JGLS), Sonipat takes 5,000 INR home

Best Memorial: National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Kochi take 5,000 INR home

The Organizing Committee congratulates the participants on their brilliant performance!! 

Further updates coming soon, till then, stay tuned. For all the participants out there, may the force be with you.


Read More]]> (rishsaxena10) Mooting Premier League Sun, 23 Mar 2014 12:53:00 +0530
Why you absolutely must read literature if you're a lawyer (and 4 books to start with)  
Gradus Ad Parnassum. This Latin phrase means “Steps to Paranassum” (one of the loftiest mountains of Central Greece). The term is often used to seek the gradual progress in literature, language or music.
Literature does resemble Paranassum now. 
Literature has lately been a compulsory subject in CBSEs and ISCs, nothing more. If more, it has taken form of Chetan Bhagat, some stupid Indian love novels and Amish. What a waste!
The classic literature is long forgotten. O. Henry, Oscar Wilde and Shakespeare are all elusive. People rather prefer chat rooms and internet over classics. The hustle and bustle of the metro cities and hep and happening life of a college student are the core reasons behind the disinterest in literature.
Technology is at its peak. It has evolved from Bada to Java to Android to Windows and lot more. The perpetual buzz of ice cream sandwich and jelly bean apps are hovering over every other thing in a Homo sapiens life today. People don’t get enough of angry birds, subway surfer and jetpack joyride.
Who has got time for book? (A few maybe)
I’m not being exponent but, a literature-lover as I am, it feels bad to see all the geniuses getting vanquished over by a pile of mobile applications. Haunting at times. 
My basic idea in this post is to show the importance of literature in a common man’s way-too-happening life, more importantly in the sphere of Law.
 “Literature always anticipates life. It doesn't copy it but moulds it to its purpose.”
– Oscar Wilde.
"It is in literature that the concrete outlook of humanity receives its expression."

- Alfred North Whitehead
These are probably the two best adages that show the importance of literature in this fast track world of gadgets and gizmos. Media’s grand foray in our lives has left reading at a pillion position occupying a perpetual driving position. Literature can do wonders in a person’s life. Not everyone realizes that.
Literature is a term used to describe written or spoken material. Broadly, Literature describes anything and everything from creative writing to scientific articles, imagination and fiction to poetry, drama and novels. Framing a proper definition of Literature is not child’s play! Literature is beyond any definition.
It might be Greek to some but this is how it is friends. It’s true!
One very obvious question that arises in every mind while appearing for their board exams or any other competitive examination is, “Why? Why, literature man?”
At this juncture everyone thinks what sense does literature make when I have unbelievably bigger and more grilling subjects to beat! A ‘Wren & Martin’ till class VIII wasn’t enough? We know English anyway! What’s the whole point of making it a part of curriculum? :/
People who are already working might find a big question mark or a blank mark at their faces on being asked if they read. “I’m earning well, a cabin of my own, got a luxury car with four entwined circles at its bonnet. Why do I need to read Wordsworth or Coelho?”
You don’t.
I am not asking you to leave your favorite pastime or forgo things you love to do. I am not asking you to make reading books a daily unforgettable ritual. An hour or two for those beautiful words imbibed on those not-so-beautiful printed pages, if that’s not too much to ask. 
Bill Clinton said, “Children can’t be expected to live a life they can’t imagine.”
Literature carries you to another world. A world, that exists within you, but is possibly unexplored and unexplained. Literature ignites that fire of imagining things and shaping your desires into a dream and then into a reality. Imagination on the other hand helps you build your intellectual and emotional quotient.
Enough nagging on reading for now! :P
Let’s see how literature also connects with Law.
You reckon it does? (You’re right. It actually does.)


It is a known fact that everything that happened in the past cannot be extracted. Anthropology, Radio Carbon Dating, Excavations and other processes have worked way beyond human expectations. A C-14 Carbon isotope can detect a lot of things but cannot narrate the story of the past. Literature on the other hand can do a lot-

  • ·        Give us a glimpse of primitive society.
  • ·        Show us the existing customs then.
  • ·        Describe the code of law used then.
  • ·        Punishments that were given on commission of crimes.
  • ·        Tell about the religion and deities of the time.
  • ·        Show the political scenario.
  • ·        Classical languages used.
  • ·        Tools of writing.

And lot more…



Ø Law Professors always use Literature

Law professors have from time immemorial been using literature to narrate the stories of law. Novels, memoirs, short stories, essays, articles etc. are used by students and professors together to dissect situations that are generally not discussed in the traditional legal scenario. Anne Coughlin says it over and over—there are certain legal spaces where it’s very hard to get information about what’s taking place. To get into those legal spaces, she asserts, “Lawyers and law professors almost have to turn to narratives to understand how our system is functioning.”

Ø Why read the “classic books” and “western cannons”?

When we read stories about things that happen to other people, we feel as though they have written about sequences of our life, changing only the name of the characters. Sometimes it is helpful to know that there are other people who feel the way you do about something, but, more importantly, it is good to know that they are willing to write about it.
To kill a mocking bird
A novel by Harper Lee published in 1960 is one of the classic of the American modern literature. It is one of the finest legal classics ever written. This novel written in “tactile brilliance” was remarked as a southern romantic regionalism as well as "the spirit-corroding shame of the civilized white Southerner in the treatment of the Negro". The Mockingbird is the symbol of innocence in the novel. "Shoot all the blue jays you want, if you can hit 'em, but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird" is in itself an allegory for this message. The mockingbird in the play is Tom Robinson. 
Atticus Finch, the soul of the novel, became the personification of the exemplary lawyer in serving the legal needs of the poor. Scholar Alice Petry explains, "Atticus has become something of a folk hero in legal circles and is treated almost as if he were an actual person."
The Merchant of Venice
Underneath the literary richness of this play by Shakespeare, lies a message about legal culture, legal history, role of law and lawyers; interpretation of the words as a lawyer does. The play has also another motif of highlighting the then existing animosity between the Christians and the Jews. Shylock, Portia, Bassanio and Antonio bring life to the legal literature. The world-famous plea of Shylock is a plea of humanity:
I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh?
Portia stands for mercy and also has an ugly and cunning side. It is witnessed in the play that how ornament and beauty can deceive. She interprets words of the bond using her wit and thereby rendering justice to Antonio.
Snow falling on Cedars
This novel by David Guterson has number of themes like the American dream, the experience of separation, prejudice, cultural differences and love, linked fates, choices, snowstorm and the trees, earth and the seas, face reading and the moral judgement. This is one such book that makes you feel the extent of expressions. The concept of “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” permeates the novel.
The Trial
This book deals with Kafka’s vision of law. A law is expected to be fair and just. And if it is not, it is expected that we work in unison to overturn and rectify that law. But Kafka’s vision is: Law is abstract. Law talks about equality and justice. But does a country exist where this concept is absolutely followed? Kafka’s views throughout this novel make it allegory as it does not point towards a specific law, but THE LAW in general. The novel also shows the corruption and lust of the judges in Courts.
The list doesn’t end here. There is so much to write and so much to appreciate but I leave the rest to my readers. To explore. To follow. To READ. (else what is the whole point of me writing this article.) :p
There are two views in the web of law and literature. One is the ‘Law in Literature’ and the other is ‘Law as Literature’. These terms originated by the LAW AND LITERATURE movement. It grew to prominence in USA in 1970s. It focuses on interdisciplinary connection between law and literature.
Law in Literature
This view is specifically based on the use of law in literature. This concept is all about the views of the writers. The writers use their “independent” thought on law, not sticking to or using plagiarism in their writings. It is about how the writers see the law in respect to situations and incidents. This method is very useful in highlighting the fertile possibilities. It places value in literature for stimulating critical thought and theory. These writings help the students to achieve a human understanding of the law. This more or less brings out the concept of ‘Judicial adventurism’ through writings.
"Poethics in its attention to legal communication and to the plight of those who are 'other', seeks to revitalize the ethical component of the law."
-         Weisberg
Law as Literature
This discipline is not like the previous one. The scholars of law as literature see law as a literature, unlike interpreting law from literature. They do not see the fertile possibilities but rather see only what is possible from the current scenario of law. Benjamin Cardozo, James White and Ronald Dworkin are all of the view that law should be treated as literature. Literature should be used to improve legal understanding. Legal interpretation should be done as a literary interpretation covering all other fields of knowledge.
James White proposes that it "is meant to teach the reader how to read his way into becoming a member of an audience it defines-into becoming one who understands each shift of tone, who shares the perceptions and judgments the text invites him to make, and who feels the sentiments proper to the circumstances. Both for its characters and readers, this novel is in a sense about reading and what reading means".

Ø Obscene Literary Classics

The Supreme Court codified in Miller v. California (1972) the rule of obscenity for literature. It was said that a work would not be classified as obscene until "taken as a whole, (it) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." 
In that very time countless writers and publishers were prosecuted for obscenity. The irony is those very works are now literary classics such as The Ulysses, Lady Chatterley’s Lover, The God of Small Things, Tropic of Cancer etc.

Ø Ancient Indian Literature

Indian literature includes all that is called ‘Literature’. Take it from The Mahabharata to The Ramayana, The Manusmritis to The Vedas, Hammurabi’s code of Law to Epic of Gilgamesh, all of these works are so important in a human’s life. Be it custom, law, ritual, emotions, truths, spirituality – they have it all. These texts are mythical in nature, they have symbolic and multiple meaning. The theologian, the preacher, the law-maker all find what they are searching for in these divine texts. There is a vital living relationship among all these literary works.
To conclude I’d say that no literature is complete in itself, no study of these can do justice to these works neither to the writers who grow in an unknown ambience. Reading, interpreting, fluidity, sharing, translations, forms, concerns, direction and movements is what it keeps them dynamically alive.
To Literature.
Cheers! :)

Read More]]> (prakhar.pandey) Legal fictions, poems et c. Sat, 22 Mar 2014 10:42:53 +0530
A Tut on How to Copy Paste Anything & Everything - Faster & Better

Ctrl + C and Ctrl + V . If you are reading this, you must have used it!  It’s perhaps the most commonly used keyboard shortcuts on planet earth. Their importance is such that a religion Kopimism has been founded upon this belief that everything should be available freely to copy paste. To become a follower, continue reading!

t is difficult to imagine to complete that 10,000 word essay without Ctrl + C, and Ctrl +V.  Ok I guess you are tired of my rants so lets talk business. This post will teach you how to copy and paste from anywhere or everywhere:-


PDF and web are the two places from where you will copy 99% of your stuff. We will tackle both of these medium individually.
See this webpage for example and try copying anything from here you will see you can’t do so. Suppose you want a paragraph or two from here you obviously don’t gonna type it down. So the following is what you could do:-
a) View Source Method: If you are using Mozilla Firefox or Google Chrome Press ‘Ctrl+U’ and press alt+v+c in Internet Explorer a new window/tab will open. This is your webpage without aesthetics in plain HTML/CSS/Javascript/PHP etc etc. Press Ctrl+F now and in the find box type a word from the paragraph/line you intend to copy for example I am gonna search ‘traditionally’ here
Now as  you can see I have got the text over here and I could simply paste it. The problem is what if I want several paragraphs then obviously it will become a pain as I will have to lift text in turns as otherwise the code gibberish will also be copied. There is a way to sort this out by using code cleaners. What you could do is select the entire text including the code in one go and paste it over here and press the strip button.


You will get output like this


b) Script Method:- The above method is quite lengthy. There is a shorter and better method to do the entire process. Install this plugin if you are using Google Chrome ,this if you are using Mozilla Firefox, this if you are using Opera and this if you are using Safari.  Still stuck on IE? Only God can help.
So these websites use client side scripts such as javascript to prevent you from copying text and using these plugin you could block these scripts from running on your computer and directly copy the text.
Warning: These addon may disrupt your regular browsing experience hence enable only for the time period when you intend to use them else keep them disabled.
c) Miscellaneous Websites:- What if you intend to copy from sites such as Google Books then the above methods won’t work. What you will need now is an OCR(Optical Character Recognition) software. The best in my view so far is Abbyy FineReader Professional Edition.
Say for example you want to copy some stuff from this Google Book over here. Run Abbyy Screenshot Reader and it will convert the captured screenshot into text.
Abbyy is a paid software. Some free alternative are FreeOCR and Google docs.

 Copying From PDF 

a) Protected PDF :- If you are using a protected PDF then you will have (SECURED) in its title like below:-



Anybizsoft PDF Password Remover, a paid software is the best way to go for removing the restrictions imposed on the file. BeCyPDFMetaEdit is another free good alternative. (Credits :Labnol)  To remove restriction run the program and locate the pdf file, change the mode to ‘Complete Rewrite’ and press OK. In the Security tab, set the ‘Security System’ to ‘No encryption’ and click the Save button.  It is not as effective as Anybizsoft and may not work sometime but then its free.
b) OCR Method:- Like mentioned in the previous post on copying from web OCR can also be used to copy from PDFs. They become really useful if the PDF is actually a scanned document. The best OCR are the Abbyy Fine Reader and Adobe X Pro.
Among the free OCRs FreeOCR and Google docs are good options.
To use Google Docs as free OCR upload the PDF and while uploading it tick the ‘Convert text from PDF and image files to Google documents’ checkbox.
Now that you know it don’t trust OCR blindly (Accuracy of conversion varies depending upon legibility of text in PDF) and for heaven’s sake at least read your write-up once before you submit it. Come on it’s not that big a pain to read what you have written on your own. Or what you claim that you have written.
Paste Paste Paste (Ctrl+V) ….
a) Multiple Paste Method:- Suppose you are reading a judgment and pasting different extracts of the judgment in a doc file. Now each time you find something useful you have to open and then switch to your word processor be it be Notepad or MS Word or something else. This leads to wastage of time. What if you could copy all the stuff in one go and then paste it. This is where clipboard managers come in play. ClipXArsclipCLCL and Ditto are some of the famous ones. My personal favourite is Arsclip.
With a clipboard manager you could simply select the text you want to copy and press ( Ctrl+C) and then move on. Keep on copying text like this and paste it one go.
ProTip –  If you paste all text from Arsclip it will paste the text in the reverse order i.e. the last text is copied in the beginning and the first chunk of text copied in the end. You could fix this. First press ctrl+shift+z in Word where you intend to paste the text.
A similar drop down menu will pop up like this:
In it click on full mode then press ‘L’ or click on ‘pasting tools’ and then click on paste selected text. Select the desired text and then select ‘Paste in Reverse’.
b) Removing Line breaks in PDF:-  Often you will fact this problem you will copy something which looks normal in a pdf and when pasted in word processor it looks like this


Now you start the laborious process of deleting unnecessary line breaks. There is a way to automate this.
In word after pasting the text select it and press Ctrl+H, the replace dialog box will open in it write ‘^p’ (^p stands for a line break) without quotes in the Find What blank and give a space in the replace with dialog  and then press replace all.  After this dialog box will ask of you want to continue replacing in the rest of Document press “No’. Your text will be sorted. 
c) Making ‘Paste Special’ Method as Default Option:- Most of you would be knowing about the paste special method in MS Word and how pasting text in ‘unformatted text’ mode of Word 2007 or ‘merge formatting’ and ‘keep text only’ option of Word 2010 merges formatting.  In Fileà Options à Advanced  you could change the option ‘pasting from other programs’ to ‘merge formatting’ and now onward you could simply paste the text directly from pdf or web without using paste special. In case you want to retain formatting then you could use ‘paste special’ with ‘keep source formatting’ option.



d) Pasting in Protected Fields – Your college/university website may not allow you to directly paste text in the blank fields. This could be easily be overcome by disabling client side scripts. Install this plugin if you are using Google Chrome, this if you are using Mozilla Firefox, this if you are using Opera and this if you are using Safari. Disable all scripts and reload the page. Now, you are good to go.

e) Textarea backup for browsers - As a lawyer often feel obliged to make the shortest possible comment to a 1000 word essay. Often feel frustrated that your comment does not get posted and you will have to rewrite it again. This script will ensure that such situation never take place again and will backup whatever you type in a textarea even after reloading the webpage.

Thats all folks! Hope that helped!

This post is inspired from a series of 3 blog posts which was originally posted here Follow us on Facebook and Twitter for regular updates.

Read More]]> (neo) Uncategorized Thu, 20 Mar 2014 19:18:37 +0530
Oxford India Moot Court Competition: A Disappointment The Oxford India Moot Court Competition was organised from 14th-16th of March in New Delhi. To say that this was  a moot court competition would be an insult to the competitions that are generally organised. It all started with the memorial selection, whose results were endlessly delayed. It should have been the cue for the participants to understand how badly the things would shape up.

Post the selection, the participants did not have a single contact number where they could contact the organizers. The email address so provided was of no use. A mail was sent in asking the participants not to contact them as they would not be able to answer so many queries on time. Participants were told that they would receive a phone number where they could contact the organisers during rounds, which is still awaited.

On Friday, 14th the date on which the competition was to begin, the draw of lots was cancelled and pretty much all the organisers were clueless about what was going on. We were informed that the match up list and the memorials will mailed (which never happened).

At 7.37 AM, we were sent a mail to turn up at the venue by 8.30. This was obviously very convenient for teams from outside Delhi and specially ones who did not have access to the internet (read sarcasm).

On turning up we realised that there was huge crowd and a police van was standing by. The members of the Organising Committee were arrested for allegedly beating up a boy and a girl representing a team which had turned up late for registration the previous team and were disqualified. Their train was late and this obviously was not a good enough ground for the organisers to consider and allow them (this was alleged by the team when the police had turned up). We heard that the moot might just be called off.

The rounds had already begun (on time which was unexpected) and each round (which was to last for at most an hour) went for two hours given there were NO COURT MASTERS and the judges asked the teams to keep time. Furthermore, the judges did not have the memorials and there was no memorial exchange. Also, the organisers refused to entertain any questions and the compendiums and related material were lying on the desks untouched. In fact participants (me being one of them) were helping the organisers get their act together. A judge had flown down from Bombay to judge the quarters and after asking for directions all over, I believe he eventually left.

The rounds were pathetically organised, the teams inside were asked to call in the next match up. No lunch was served and tea was delayed (the caterer asked me to remove the memorials from the table as he had to organise the tea and otherwise he would have them chucked away).

The organisers were extremely rude and refused to answer any query. They first informed (informing simply comprised of coming out and yelling out what they wanted to say regardless of the teams being present) that the researcher exam would take place after the result for quarters would be announced and those who qualified would take the exam the next day.

A lot of researchers moved out to study and then suddenly there was an announcement that the exam would take place immediately. Many of the researchers missed the same and those who turned up late were not given extra time as the organisers thought 'they had asked other researchers the questions'.

The quarters were to start by 8 PM (the prelims had begun at 9 in the morning) which definitely says a lot about how much the organisers respected the time.  I am clueless about the semis. They also refused to keep the rounds the next day as ‘they had no place’ for the same.

No one could move around as the announcements could take place at any time and the teams would be expected to act immediately.  We neither know how the selection to the quarters was was decided (as it was a win loss system and one of the qualifying teams to the same had lost one round – as informed by the judge in court) and by the end of all of this the teams were too frustrated to even care.

The cherry on the cake was the mail which asked the participants not come for the closing ceremony. An extract of the same is –

“The organizers of the Annual Oxford India Summit 2014, have informed the Moot Organizing Committee (MOC) that as the number of registrations for the event significantly exceeds the seating capacity at the venue, it is unfortunately not possible for them to accommodate any of the teams participating in the Annual Oxford University India Moot Court Competition 2013-14.

Only those teams which have been shortlisted for Semi-Final Rounds may be accommodated at the venue tomorrow for the remaining rounds of the competition.

Please note that the results for "Best Speaker Award", "Best Researcher Award" and the "Best Memorial Award" will be announced on Monday, 17th March 2014 via email and will also be published on the official competition website The concerned winning teams will also be intimated via telecom and sent their Certificates and Prizes via registered post.”

For one this is the first of its kind off a moot where the organisers did not want the participants to take part in the closing ceremony. We are still waiting for the results.

Given that there is no transparency and the organisers have time and again refused to assist the teams in any manner, the credibility of the forthcoming result and the fact that the participants would ever receive their certificates is questionable.

The competition already came with a lot of expectations, given that it was being organised by the ‘OXFORD UNIVERSITY’ but what came out was a rude shock for all of us and I agree with the statements made by my co-participants who just had one thing to say post the prelim results, "Thank god, the torture is over."

Read More]]> (akanksha3091) Mooting Premier League Mon, 17 Mar 2014 22:51:11 +0530
LIVE BLOG 4th Indian Vis Pre-Moot 2014


Welcome to the 4th Indian Vis Pre-Moot 2014!

The final rounds are about to begin in a few moments. The finals involve National Law School of India University,Bangalore(East) team and the National Law University,Delhi(East) team.

The rounds are happenning at the Moot Court Hall of National Law University,Delhi

NLSIU,Bangalore are Claimaint, represented by Mr. Nimoy Kher and Mr.Rudrajit Ghosh

NLU,Delhi are Respondent , represented by Mr.Pratyush Panjwani and Mr. Harshad Pathak

The bench consists of Ms. Sneha Jain, Runner-up at Vis Viennab2ap3_thumbnail_IMG_20140309_174613.jpg

Mr. Anirudh Krishnan, an expert at arbitration

and Ms.Ishita Bhardwaj, Winner at Vis Vienna, 2012

The rounds have begun and the questions from the judges begun almost simultaneously. A flumoxxing question by Mr.Anirudh has left the respondent jurisdiction speaker searching for answers.

Mr.Anirudh continues with his rentless need for perfection as he asks Mr.Nimoy to not a quote a case if he is not aware of its facts. Things are sure getting heated in here!

The Respondent after being thrown off guard by the judges are now getting back on track as they continue uninterrupted.

Having summed up their first submission, the Respondent has begun adressing its second submission.

After a barrage of questions, the respondent jurisdiction speaker is about to sum up all his arguments and end his submission.

A slight faux pas in adressing Mr. Anirudh as Madam Arbitrator. Seems like the pressure of the judges is getting to this team!

Mr.Anirudh is at it again, using the respondent speaker's source against him. This is getting interesting!

The judges are far from over with their questions to the respondent jurisdiction speaker. The time limit has been thrown out of the window!

The respondent jurisdiction speaker has finished with his submissions. The  claimant jurisdiction speaker shall now respond to the objections raised by the Respondent.


Mr.Anirudh strikes again. After a uninterrupted run, the claimant jurisdiction speaker is now busy answering the questions raised by the judges.

Each speaker's knowledge of the UNCITRAL Model Law has constantly been brought under the scanner, especially by Mr.Anirudh.

A disagreement with regard to his submission has caused the claimant jurisdiction speaker to submit his alternate submission. How will this move pay off?

The bench has constantly been peperring the teams with reagrd to "consent". Let's see how each team convinces the bench with their side!

In a smart move, the claimant jurisdiction speaker quickly took the bench's attention away when he did not know the facts of a case. Nice!

The judges just don't seem to stop with their relentless series of questions, yet the speakers don't seem to be losing their nerves. Indeed comendable.


The bench is contantly testing the team's  knowledge of case law and jurisdictional doctrines. 

After a clear overshoot of time, the claimant jurisdiction speaker has been asked by the bench to conclude his last submission briefly.

The claimant speaker has finished his submissions after some serious questioning by the panel. Now we have respondent claimant speaker to put forward his rebuttal.

Now the claimant jurisdiction speaker is responding with his sur-rebuttal. Short and sweet, he ends it as I type.

After a quick round of rebuttals, we have the claimant merit speaker putting forward his submissions to the esteemed panel.

The judges show no chance of letting the speakers go easy as they continue questioning the claimant merit speaker.

Despite some intense questions from the bench, the claimant merit speaker hasn't cracked and is continuing calmly.

The panel just doesn't seem to run out of questions! But at the same time, an applause for the speaker's patience and cool head as he continues answering smoothly.

Finally, the submissions seem to end as the panel requests the claimant merit speaker to sum up briefly.

With permission from the panel, the respondent merit speaker has begun speaking right after the claimant merit speaker ended his submissions.

As the time and the respondent merit speaker drones on, the judges are in no meed to let go as they continue bombarding the speaker with questions.

With the submissions of the respondent merit speaker reaching its peak, suddenly a question posed by the bench has left him searching for a suitable answer.

With a flourish, the respondent merit speaker has finished his submissions. Now we have the claimant merit speaker with 3 point rebuttal.

With extremely short and brief points, the respondent merit speaker wasted no time in directly getting his points across, and has now finished his arguments. The claimant merit speaker in another brief speech, submitted his sur-rebuttals.

The judges are now deliberating as we await the results.

The Best Speaker from the Preliminary rounds is Mr. Rudrajeet Ghosh, NLSIU Bangalore

The Best Speaker from the Final rounds is Mr. Harshad Pathak, NLU Delhi

The Winner of the Final rounds is National Law School of India University, Bangalore

A prize money of Rs.10,000 has been awarded to the runner up team National Law University,Delhi and of Rs.15,000 to thw Winners, National Law School of India University,Bangalore.

Thank you everyone, this marks the end of the live blog covering the 4th Indian Vis Pre-Moot 2014 organised by National Law University,Delhi in collaboration with NALSAR University of Law and NUJS Kolkata.


Read More]]> (indianvispremoot2014) Mooting Premier League Sun, 09 Mar 2014 15:52:51 +0530
RIP: Love sometimes makes you numb What is love? Love is faith. Love is the beauty of life. Love is passion, affection, desire. Love is a major purpose for living; that connection is inherent in all that we do, and without love, we cannot survive as a species.

But, what if this beautiful feeling for someone kills you? An incident reflecting “dangerous side effects of love” took place in my college recently. Just because his girlfriend broke up with him, he forgot his parents, family, friends, and everything. He even forgot that he was in his final semester and was about to leave his student life and start a new life as a lawyer. He boozed a lot and jumped off the hostel building at midnight. Although he did not die on the spot, but 80% of his bones were crashed and he became a body with a very little hope of survival. He died almost after a week of struggle.

Is this kind of love useful? I mean how did this ‘beautiful’ feeling helped him, and all his well-wishers? In the end, they lost him. “He died for his girlfriend, because he loved her a lot”- is this what every one of us thinking right now? No! Not at all! What would be the broken mother’s condition? How would his father have hidden his tears? How would his family and friends have overcome this situation? All these questions are impossible to answer. I wish that boy had thought about the consequences before taking that hazardous step….

I would like to quote a very heart touching line from the speech of a very young faculty which over-whelmed all the students in the condolence ceremony of that boy, “5 years back, when I joined this college as a faculty, never in my wildest dreams I ever imaged that I will carry my student on my shoulders”.

I wish he was alive. But he is not. I wish his soul would have seen the love and affection of his family and friends and I wish his soul would have pledged never to commit suicide again in any birth. RIP.

Read More]]> (Aishwarya Dhancholia) Student life Thu, 06 Mar 2014 00:19:10 +0530
Justice P.N. Bhagwati 4th International Moot Court Competition on Human Rights, New Law College, BVDU, Pune (7-9th'Mar'14): Live Blog

As we proceed towards the end of the phenomenon valedictory episode,  for which we have Justice Hon'ble Justice N.V. Ramana, Judge, Supreme court of India as the cheif guest for the event His words of wisdom included a brief speech on his view on Human Rights and why one should chose practice as his carrer path as over corporate field.

With this i would like to annouce the results of justice P.N. Bhagwati 4th International Moot Court Competition on Human Rights:

Winning team: RGNUL, Patiala

Runner's Up: SLS, Noida

2nd Runners up: IOL Nirma,






The Catholic University of Eastern Africa


Africa Nazarene University,Law Department, Kenya


Winfred Gitahi-

Africa Nazarene University, Law Department, Kenya


Waruta Paul Wangati -

The Catholic University Of Eastern Africa


Beatrice Kioko -

Africa Nazarene University,Law Department, Kenya


Muhavi Peter Mugambi-

The Catholic University of Eastern Africa


The Catholic University of Eastern Africa






DES’S Navalmal Firodia Law College , Pune


National Law University, Cuttack, Odisha


Shivani Bhatnagar-

Rajiv Gandhi National University Of Law, Patiala


Ankit Gusain-

Rajiv Gandhi National University Of Law, Patiala


Dhwani Lakhani-

Institute of law, Nirma University


Shashank Kumar V.

Symbiosis Law School, Noida


Institute Of Law, Nirma University


Symbiosis Law School, Noida


Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala


Thank you being a part of this competition with help of this Blog

Good day,

jai Hind

“Human right is a universal standard. It is a component of every religion and every civilization”






Speaker two makes the final submission that the respondents do not completely resent the use right of self determination, it believes that it should have been the last resort. 


Rebuttals starts:

Appicant is still hung on the issue of statehood. Seeks extension of two minutes, the bench opines that it will depricate what Krance has done provided applicant must give up the Bambara issue. 


Applicant deals with the proposition wisely. Rests the case.


Respondent comes for rebuttals . Asserts the previous contentions again. Rests the case.

Hence the battle comes to an end. The chief guests for the Vledictory have arrived.

 We will get back to you wit the results once the Valedictory ends.

 Stay tuned!


Respondents_RGNUL, Patiala


The bench is giving rough time to the Speaker. Stuck on one question.



We will be back with the updates on rebuttals..

Stay tuned

Respondents_RGNUL, Patiala


Speaker two is up. Accuses the applicant on the use of bilogical weapons.The bench questions on use of biological weapons. Bench corects the speaker on the point of distinction between nuclear weapons and biological weapons. The Statehood of the State is again challenged by the bench. Tough questioning follows.









                                                                         Respondents_RGNUL, Patiala


Speaker 1 takes the dais. The bench questions about UN Charter and veto power. It further asks about the conflict in Bambara and Krance's intervention in Janjeera. Interestingly, speaker is asked who you are representing, Krance or Bambara or both. Speaker takes a minute, consults his team-mates and remains firm on representing both the parties. Bench asks aren't you exceeding your rights by clouding with Krance? Speaker responses properly. Now speaker is asked again about exceeding power. 


10 mins left. The bench questions again. Speaker submits the internal problem of Janjeera is not an internal problem of Bambara, thus Krance's intervention is irrelevant. Janjeera has the right to self-determination. Commoners of the cause stand differential. The bench takes a stern stand and asks repeatedly on the facts of the case. Speaker contradicts in her submission with regards to facts. Faces a tough time with the bench. Bench states, "if you drop all the facts of the case, this will create a history in moot court" 

Speaker reaches towards end of alloted time. Seeks two extra minutes to conclude.

Submission ends. 







b2ap3_thumbnail_20140309_093611_20140309-053356_1.jpgb2ap3_thumbnail_20140309_093627_20140309-053358_1.jpgb2ap3_thumbnail_20140309_095037_20140309-053400_1.jpgb2ap3_thumbnail_20140309_093627_20140309-053358_1.jpgb2ap3_thumbnail_20140309_095037_20140309-053400_1.jpgb2ap3_thumbnail_20140309_100558_20140309-053402_1.jpgb2ap3_thumbnail_20140309_100558_20140309-053402_1.jpgb2ap3_thumbnail_20140309_101732_20140309-053404_1.jpgb2ap3_thumbnail_20140309_101732_20140309-053404_1.jpgb2ap3_thumbnail_20140309_101739_20140309-053407_1.jpgGOOD MORNING 

10.25 am

Speaker 2 comes on the dais to speak for the final 20 mins. Seems well versed with the facts. The bench questioned the statehood of Jnajeerabad yet again. Speaker 2 emphasis on powers of Janjeerawad as to statehood and refers to the compromis. The bench makes it clear to the speaker to slow down and answer specifically. Example of Tibet, china and Kashmir is stated by the bench. She now takes the issue of veto power abuse by Krance. Judge questions again, on various provisions of veto power under the ICJ. Speaker states history of the State. Bench further questions on the principles violated under the International Law. The Speaker is in position to answer.

Bench now questions on Shariya Law and on issue of brutal killings involved in the problem. time running out. Speaker concludes the submission. As the time expires the submissions end.








Speaker 1 from applicant side takes the dais, begins with smooth arguments with proper perusal of facts. For initial 10 mins the bench seems satisfied.  Whether Janjeerawad rightfully exercised the right to self determination is the first point on which the speaker substatiates. Speaker further states Roosevelt's and Churchill's principles. Interupted by their Execlency on the point as to what constitutes right to self determination. Speaker said that the right constitutes what determines the destiny of a state as to how it safeguards its interest. Quotes Article 1 of Montevideo convention and further Judge questions the qualification described under the convention. The speaker quotes 4 pre-requisites in this regard. Speaker Furhter states that UNHRC self Determination is not limited to colonial discrimination by Bamabara Govt. No positive action was taken by Bambara. Securing of rights by use of force of self determination was necessary.

Execlency puts forth and intriguing question, "if a state is in breach of international law how can it claim a right under the same"

Speaker 1 states a catena of judgements of ICJ to justify on the point.

Speaker 1 moves towards the summing up of arguments but the bench gives a bundle of hurdles to the speaker by questioning the statehood and existence of Janjeerabad. The speaker answered well and concluded the submission.


10:00 am

The final round is between SLS, Noida and RGNUL, Patiala. As per draw of lots SLS noida will be applicant and RGNUL, Patiala will be respondent in the final round.



We have a bench of 6 Judges to Judges the final rounds,

Hon'ble Mr Justice Gautham Shirish Patel, Judge, Bombay High Court

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Judge, Bombay Hight Court

Hon'ble Mr Justice Dinesh Maheswari, Judge, Rajasthan High Court

Hon'ble Mr Justice S.R. Bannuramath, Chairperson, Maharastra State Human Rights Commision

Hon'ble Mr Justice J.B. Koshy, Chairperson, Kerela State Human Rights Commision



Here we are at the Abhijeet Kadam Auditourium and all to set to begin with the Final round of Justice P.N. Bhagwati International Moot Court Competition on Human Rights. The Auditorium currently looks no less than an ICJ courtroom, credits Court Clecks and stage committee.

The judges have walked the isle in the college and are presently being breifed about various facets of the moot court  problem. The thrilling round will start soon.

Please don't miss to catch the live telecast of the final round : 

don't miss the glimpses on the facebook page:

As the teams are egaged in their dinner after a long day, we have the results declaring the two teams which made it to the finals:

RGNUL, Patiala

SLS, Noida (not in rank order)

We congratulate the colleges for making it to the finals. We wish them all the best for tomorrow morning once again in advance.

We will be back tomo sharp at 9 with the finals and do catch our live telecast for the same. 

Till then the blogging team takes bow for the night and will catch you all tomo.

Good night

Nlc, Blogging Team :-)


As the rebuttal ends, the semifinal rounds of Justice P.N. Bhagwati International Moot Court comes to an end.

We will be uploading the results very soon as scoring teams gets down to work. The teams are now being escorted to our guest house as dinner awaits them.

We wish all the participants a heartiest congratulations for making it so far.

We have the final round starting 9 am sharp tomorrow morning followed by the valedictory functions. We shall be having the esteemed presence of 6 High Court Judges from various parts of India. 

The snaps will be uploaded soon in our FB page and don't forget to the catch the live telecast of the finals and prize distribution round at:




Court no. 1

For the respondent we have speaker no. 2 from their side. The bench is silent and listens to the speakers silently.

Court Room no. 7

Respondent again states the point of biological weapons issue and finally is able to convince the judges.



Court Room no. 7

As the rebuttal steps in, applicant first and foremost point is regarding biological weapons. Applicants uses the rebuttal time to give a complete point to point clarifications on issues raised by the repsondents.



Court Room no. 1

Speaker 1 of the applicant is on fire with his loud and bold voice, and uses his entire rebuttal time in stating his point. He seeks 30sec extention. 





Court Room No. 1

A time extention was seeked by the speaker 2 and now the speaker has moved on to the prayer.


Court Room No. 7

The speaker states circumstantial evidence and comes to stating the prayers for the arguments.



Court Room No. 1

Judges question speaker 2 on Inferred membership and speaker 2 answers the same very well. Further the judge doesn't miss out on asking about role of Secuirty Council in case of anticipatory self defence.

Court Room No. 7

Speaker 2 directly moves on to Geneva Conventions as just 5 more mminutes left.



Court Room No.1

As time concluded for speaker 1 who wraped up the arguments in a very diplomatic way, speaker 2 steps in and as the arguments gets heated up the the bench gives a little hard time to the speakers but the speakers handle it in an amiable way.

Court Room No.7

Speaker 1 takes on extension and give a good argument as its very evident the speaker is well versed with the facts. As extention ends speaker 2 steps in and starts giving arguments on Quran and Sharia Law.




Court Room No. 7

Speaker 1 of the respondent adds light to Article 42 of the UN Charter. Lordship ask for evidence on the verious arguments and issues stated by the Speakers. 

Court Room No. 1

The judge tricks the speaker 1 of the respondent by saying if a state is declared as a state by the UN then isnt it a state? speaker deals with this question calmly and replies with supporting facts. Court takes a stern stand and asks the speaker to address on the specific issues. 



Court Room 1.

As applicants wind up their arguments with a time extentions the respondents steps on the dais.

Speaker 1 completing the arguments.

Court Room No. 7

Respondents start with a pleasent beinging of submissions and talks about France interventions.



Court Room No. 7

Speaker no. 2 starts with the contentions, Judges go slow and questions the jurisdiction of ICJ. Cited example of Bangladesh. with such detailed reply to judges speaker 2 seeks and extention of 5min.


Court Room No. 1

Speaker 2 starts with the arguments, who is well versed with the arguments. They had substantial reaserch to back their contention and issues raised by the Judges.



Court Room No. 7

As Applicant 1 answers judges questions and wraps up peacefully. we have applicant no 2 steping in.



Court room No.1

Judges were really impressed with the art of putting forward the contentions. The Judge tricks the speaker over defination of state and and speaker 1 is indeed flawless with his arguments. speaker 1 goes for a time extention.



Court Room No. 7

The applicants is well versed with law and memorial points, Applicants with an ease solved the hurdles put by the judges.


Court Room No.1

Applicant's Speaker no. 1 gets going with smooth arguments and has sighted the UN charter. The judges question regarding the powers which allows him to exercise such rights. Further Judges didn't fail to challenge and question such citations and arguments.





In Court Room No. 1, we have

Nirms University(Applicant) vs. SLS, Noida(respondent)

Court Room No. 2, we have

Rgnul Patiala(applicant) vs. Nlc Matunga, Mumbai








End of phase one of the battle..

The battlefield was set, warriors showed up great courage and vigour..Indeed it was a war of words marked by a happy ending!

Here we are presenting you with the results of Prelim rounds. The top 4 scorers of the Prelims round is:

NLC, Matunga

SLS, Noida

IOL, Nirma University

RGNUL, Patiala.

(Not rank wise)

We are about to begin with the semi’s in a bit, stay and congratulations once again to all the qualifiers.




As the teams are back from a sumptuous lunch and our backend team has prepared all necessary arrangements for round 2.

We wish all the participants again all the very best for round 2. We'll be uploading snapshots very soon, do cacth us on our facebook page too,

catch you guys with the prelims results by evening 5pm




Round 1 of the prelims comes to an end and we have the particiapnts going for lunch. we'll be back soon with round 2 in a bit.

For the prelims round 1, we have

Court room#1. Applicant: Iraq, Kurdistan Region V. Respondent: KBH Law College Malegaon Nasik

Court room#2. Applicant: New Law College V. Respondent: Raffles University, School of Law, Rajasthan

Court room#3. Applicant: GLC, Mumbai V. Respondent: C.D Deshmukh law College, Ahmednagar

Court room#4. Applicant: University of Mauritius V. Respondent:  ILS, Pune

Court room#5. Applicant: Bangalore Institute of Legal Studies V. Respondent: KC Law College, Mumbai

Court room#6. Applicant: Gandhi Nagar National Law School V. Respondent: NLUO, Cuttack

Court room#7. Applicant: UILS, Punjab V Respondent: SVKM, NMIMS, Mumbai

Court room#8. Applicant: Symbiosis Law School, Noida V. Respondent: Institute of Law, Nirma University

Court room#9. Applicant: Africa Nazarene University, Kenya V. Respondent: VIPS, IP University

Court room#10. Applicant: KIIT School of law, Bhubaneshwar V. Respondent: RGNUL, Patiala

Court room#11. Applicant: Faculty of Law, Lucknow V. Respondent: Amity law School, Noida

Court room#12. Applicant: School of Excellence, Chennai V. Respondent: Rizvi Law School, Mumbai

Court room#13. Applicant: The Catholic University Eastern Africa V. Respondent: NLU Jodhpur

Court room#14. Applicant: Balaji Law College, Pune V Respondent: SVKM Pravin Gandhi law college, Mumbai

Court room#15. Applicant: NLU Tamil Nadu V. Respondent: DES Law College, Pune

Court room#16. Applicant: NUJS, Kolkata V. Respondent: School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore

Court room#17. Applicant: Law College, Dehradun V. Respondent: V M Salgaocar, Goa

Court room#18. Applicant: Modern Law College, Ganesh Khind, Pune V. Respondent: Symbiosis Law School, Pune

The results are going to be out very soon.





The anticipation is finally over and hence we begin with one of the most awaited legal event of the year living up to the stature that the event has achieved over the past 4 years. This event has begun with a bang. The event was inaugurated by renowned Supreme Court Judge Hon’ble Justice Shiva Kirti Singh. He also enchanted the students with his inspirational address. He focussed the importance of role of lawyers in today’s society and the role played by them in upholding the spirit of Human Rights. Parched on the dais along with the Supreme Court Judge were Hon’ble Justice S.B. Shukre, Judge ,Bombay High Court, Prof. A Lakhsminath, Vice-chancellor, CNLU, Patna, Hon’ble Dr. Patangrao Kadam, Chancellor, BVDU and Prof. Dr. Mukund Sarda, dean  &Principal, New Law College.

We will annouce the results of the prelims very soon, stay tuned.

Catch the various glimpses of the event on our facebook page,


 As we are about to begin with the first round of  prelims,

 The list of participating teams are :

  1.    The Catholic University of Eastern Africa
  2.    Africa Nazarene University Law Department, Kenya
  3.    Iraq, Kurdistan Region
  4.    National Law University, Jodhpur
  5.    National Law University, Orissa, Cuttack
  6.    RGNUL, Patiala
  7.    Tamil Nadu National Law School
  8.    ILS, Pune
  9.    School of law, Christ University, Bangalore
  10.    Symbiosis Law School, Noida
  11.    SVKM Pravin Gandhi College of Law, Mumbai
  12.    Bangalore Institute of Legal Studies
  13.    V.M. Salgaocar College of law, Goa
  14.    New Law College , Matunga, Mumbai
  15.    VIPS, Indraprasth University, Delhi
  16.    Institute of Law, Nirma University
  17.    P.E.S  Modern Law College, Pune
  18.    SVKM’s Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Mumbai
  19.    KIIT School of Law, Bhubaneswar
  20.    Amity Law School, Noida
  21.    Faculty of Law, Lucknow University
  22.    Raffles University, Rajasthan
  23.    Balaji law college, Pune
  24.    DES, Pune
  25.    C.D. Deshmukh law college, Ahmednagar
  26.    Mahatma Gandhi Vidya Mandir Karamveer Bhausaheb Hiray (KBH) Law College Malegaon, Nasik
  27.    Government Law College, Mumbai
  28.    Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar
  29.    Law College Dehradun
  30.    Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  31.    K C Law College , Mumbai
  32.    School of Excellence in Law, Chennai
  33.    NUJS, Kolkata
  34.    UILS, Punjab
  35.    Rizvi Law College
  36.    Mauritius University

 We wish all the teams all the very best once again.


A very Good Morning


We are currently outside the newly renovated swanky Abhijeet Kadam auditorium and we are about to start with the inauguration of the 4th Edition of Justice P.N. Bhagwati International Moot Court on Human Rights.

We are having an array of legal luminaries including Hon’ble Justice Shiva Kiriti Singh, Judge, Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble Justice S.B. Shukre, Judge, Bombay High Court for the very inaugration of this event. We are highly obliged by their presence as they flew by such an early morning flight just for us.

We are also shortly expecting Hon’ble Prof. Dr. A Lakshiminath, Vice Chancellor, CNLU Patna. Further we will be blessed with the presence and blessing of Hon’ble Dr. Patangrao Kadam, Chancellor BVDU; Hon’ble Shivajirao Kadam, Vice-Chacellor, BVDU; Hon’ble Dr. Vishwajeet Kadam, Secretary, BVDU. We will also have with us Hon’ble Dr. Adish C. Aggarwala, Senior Advocate and President, International Council of Jurists.

Stay tuned! We will be back with the updates of inaugural ceremony and some snaps shortly to give you all a feel of this event.

Please don't forget to catch the live telecast of the preliminary and the final rounds !  

Good Day,

Blogging Team,

New Law College









We welcome all the readers, bloggers, well wisher and followers of this competition to the live blogging page of Justice P.N Bhagwati 4th International Moot Court Competition on Human Rights. We the blogging team brings you a complete insight of this nail biting and thrilling competition. We hope to get you a complete breath of view of this event.

This Evening we had the teams arriving from all over India and abroad who got them registered for this great event followed by a magnificent cultural event with the primary theme human rights.

We particularly highlight the fashion show which had the theme of LTTE issues depicting the assassination of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. It was infact a splendid performance which left the audience spell bound. The audience was also presented with a special performance of lavani (a traditional folk dance of Maharashtra) as well as a spectacular kathak and Rajasthani folk dance performance.

After the ornate cultural performances the teams went through the exchange of memorials which would give the participants a petite insight of what’s going to come from the opponent in the prelim rounds. As the team’s head for the guest house for a lavish Indian dinner we the blogging team take an adieu for tonight.

We will be back tomorrow at 10am sharp starting with the inaugural function followed by the prelim rounds. Later in the evening we will  have the semi-final rounds which will decide the top 2 runners up of the race.

We wish all the participants good luck for tomorrow and a pleasant stay in the city of Pune. Good Night to all our readers and stay tuned ……

PS: Please click below for facebook link and catch the glimpse of the event.







“To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity”

                                                                                            Nelson Mandela

The furor has begun with just 2 days left for the “Great Legal Battle”. Bharati VidyaPeeth’s New Law College, Pune brings its 4th Edition of Justice P N Bhagwati International Moot Court Competition on Human Rights. The fun cannot amiss and so we will bring you even the minutest insights from the competition via our blog iwth help of LegallyIndia. 

 Recollecting the memories, for past three years the competition has been graced by remarkable and eminent legal luminaries. Hon’ble Justice P.N. Bhagwati former Chief Justice of India a man of great stature, a living legend, a cynosure of all eyes has been profusely associated with the event.

 The pioneer of this prestigious moot is Prof. Mukund Sarda, Dean and Principal of New Law College, BVDU, alongwith faculty incharge Prof. Dev Chopra and co-ordinator Prof. Aman Mishra. The problem focuses on real life ground issues relating to human Right and International law currently pertaining to the various part of the world.

The 1st Edition of the “Justice P.N. Bhagwati International Moot Court Competition on Human Rights” was inaugurated by Hon’ble Dr. M Veerappa Moily, the then Union Minister for Law and Justice in the august presence of Hon’ble Justice P.N. Bhagwati, former Chief Justice of India and member of the UNHRC.

In its 2nd Edition the competition sought participation from international teams including University of Reading, U.K.; School of Law, D.E. Paul University, Chicago, USA; Vistula University, Poland and University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland along with 25 premier law schools from across India who competed before a hypothetical version of International Court of Justice, the Judicial Organ of United Nations.

The 3rd Edition of the competition was inaugurated at the hands of Hon’ble Justice Dipak Mishra, Judge, Supreme Court Of India, Hon’ble Justice Mr. D. R. Deshmukh, Chairman,Company Law Board, New Delhi, in the gracious presence of Hon’ble Shri Manan Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate, Chairman, Bar Council of India, Hon’ble Prof. Dr. David A. Jones, Director, United States Law Program, University of Warsaw, Poland and Hon’ble Prof. Jerzy Pawel Gieorgica, Professor, Vistula University, Poland and other eminent legal jurists from India. The problem was based on various aspects of Syria crisis.

This  year the mega event will be inaugurated by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shiva Kirti Singh, Judge, Supreme Court Of India, Hon’ble Mr. Justice  S. B. Shukre, Judge, Bombay High Court,  Hon’ble Shri  Manan Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate, Chairman, Bar Council of India, Hon’ble Prof. Dr. A Lakshminath, Vice Chancellor, Chanakya National Law University Patna, Hon’ble Dr. Adish C. Aggarwal, Senior Advocate & President, International Council Of Jurists, and in the gracious presence of Hon’ble dr. Patangrao Kadam, Chancellor, Bharati Vidyapeeth University, Hon’ble Dr. Vishwajeet Kadam, Secretary, Bharati Vidyapeeth University, Pune  and other empowering  personalities of the legal fraternity.

The present moot problem deals with the issue of abuse of Veto power by the permanent members of United Nations coupled with critical analysis of law relating to self-determination.  International law is no more in transitory state and it is a true law in essence. It cannot be a prerogative of a few. Thus upholding the principle of human rights, “everyone is born with dignity and shall be treated equally”, the participants are expected to highlight the disparity between the permanent and non-permanent members of the UN.

 The competition rounds will be judged by renowned legal experts including Chairpersons of several State Human Rights Commissions, Judges and eminent academicians. The final round will be judged by a panel of sitting High Court Judges of India.

The event begins on 7th of March with the inaugural ceremony followed by preliminary and semifinal rounds on 8th of March and the finals on 9th of March. We’ll bring you all the latest and live updates of the exhilarating event and also live blog on the 3-days gripping event with the help of

This year’s the competition is brought to you in association with CLA online and Legalance, Magazine partner Lexwitness, knowledge partner SCC online, media partner Legallyindia, Advocate khoj and Law mantra.

We wish all the participants All the very best for the upcoming challenge.

Find yourself equipped with all the court room actions through our blog.

To read the problem click below:

Follow us on facebook at:


Carpe Diem!

NLC, Blogging Team



Read More]]> (ishaan91) Mooting Premier League Wed, 05 Mar 2014 16:39:28 +0530
LIVE from Saturday: 5th NLU Antitrust Moot Court Competition, 2014 5th March, 2014, 03:30 pm:

Welcome to the 5th NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition, 2014 Blog!

National Law University, Jodhpur is proud to host the Fifth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition in association with Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A. Shroff & Co., the Competition Commission of India, and knowledge partner, LexisNexis. We’re just two days away from the event. The rounds are scheduled from 7th to 9th March, 2014.

The NLU Antitrust Moot Court Competition was the first of its kind in the field of competition law. Since its inception in 2010, it has become one of the most popular moot court competitions in the country. This year will see 42 teams competing for a chance to win the trophy, prize money of Rs. 50,000 and the coveted internships at Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A. Shroff & Co.

Further details can be found here:

You can also visit our Facebook page for live updates during the moot at:

The blog will be promptly updated with the highlights and results of the competition as soon as they are declared. There will also be a live blog for the Final Rounds to be held on the 9th of March, 2014. Stay tuned to know how your college is faring!



8th March, 2014, 03:00 pm:

Results for the Preliminary Rounds are out!

The results for the Preliminary Rounds of the 5th NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition are out! Here are the teams that made it to the Quarter Finals, in no particular order:

  1.       National Law University, Delhi
  2.       The National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi
  3.       Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  4.       National Law School of India University, Bangalore
  5.       Amity Law School, Noida
  6.       NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad
  7.       Indian Law Society Law College, Pune
  8.       National Law Institute University, Bhopal

Stay tuned to see which teams qualify for the Semi Final Rounds, scheduled for later this evening!



8th March, 2014, 07:30 pm:

Here are the results of the Quarter-Finals!

The 5th NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition is in full swing. The Quarter Final Rounds are now over, and the following colleges have qualified for the Semi-Final Rounds, which will be held tonight (no particular order):

  1. Indian Law Society Law College, Pune
  2. NALSAR, Hyderabad
  3. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  4. National Law University, Delhi

To find out which two teams qualify for the Final Rounds, and stand a chance to win a prize money of Rs. 20,000 and the coveted AMSS internships, watch this space!



8th March, 2014, 11:30 pm:

The results for the Semi-Final Rounds are out!

The wait is over! The two teams who will be battling it out in the Final Rounds tomorrow are:

  1. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  2. National Law University, Delhi

We will be live blogging the Final Rounds tomorrow morning. Stay tuned to see who lifts the Winner’s Trophy for the 5th NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition, 2014!



9th March, 2014


 09:44 am

The Finals Rounds of the 5th NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition, 2014 are about to begin!



 09:48 am:

The judges for the Final Rounds are:

1. Dr. Geeta Gouri 

2. Mr. John Handoll 

3. Yaman Verma

 The rounds have begun!



9:54 am:

Speaker One (From NLU-Delhi) submits that the information given by the Director General is not "information" under Section 19 of the Competition Act, 2002 and cannot be part of fresh investigations.



10:00 am:

Judge Yaman Verma asked if all collusive behaviour is parallel behaviour. 


10:05 am:

Speker One from NLU-Delhi submits that there is no intelligible differentia between the different states, the relevant geographic market is Boheimia. The Judges ask her to skip over the argument about the relevant product market. The Speaker has been asked to summarize in a minute as her allotedd time is up.


10:09 am:

Speaker Two from NLU-Delhi is now addressing the Bench. She will be dealing with the issues regarding penalty for not filing notification and matrix emplyed for imposing penalty.



10:15 am:

Speaker Two from NLU- Delhi agrues that the second acquisition was not a combination and their Client was not under an obigation to file a notification.


10:18 am:

The Judges are asking the Counsel if  In-House Counsels are deemed to be advocates. The issue is if communication with In-House Counsels should be privileged. The Speaker refers to the case of Deepak Agrawal v Keshav Kaushak and Sushma Suri v. NCT.

Regarding foreign legal Counsels, she argues that a functional approach should be taken so that communication by foreign legal Counsels is also protected as they perform the same function as an advocate although in this case, they are not enrolled in the Bar.


10:23 am:

The Appellants have wrapped up their Arguments.


10:31 am:

Speaker One from Symbiosis Law School, Pune has begun with the Respondent's Submissions.




Judge Geeta Gouri asks if the Government was the only consumer in the market. The Speaker says that the facts are silent on the Government's share in the market. She submits that both the Government and hte general public are consumers.


10:40 am:

Judge Gouri asks if all long term contracts are anti-competitive.


10:45 am:

Speaker One has now moved on to the second issue regarding privileged communication. She argues that communication with In House Counsels does not amount to a claim of defense. It is mere opinions and cannot be protected by privilege. She too is relying on the case of Satish Kumar.  


10:47 am:

The Speaker has been granted an extension of one minute to summarize her arguments regarding whether the Director General had authority to investigate the contrvention of Section 3.


10:48 am:

Speaker Two from Symibiosis Law School, Noida is now addressing the Bench. 



10:55 am:

Speaker Two argues that compimentary bidding is evident from the fact that the Appellants are selling their products at a lower a price to other byuers but chose to quote significatly higher prices when bidding to the Government. 


10:59 am:

Speaker Two explains that the two criteria relevant to determine cartelization are market concentration and homogeneity of products. Answering Judge Verma's question, she clarifies that the stationery market is homogeneous because the products are all close substitutes of each other.


11:11 am:

Both sides have made their submissions. The Appellants have been granted four minutes for rebuttals. NLU-Delhi attack the Respondents' "close subsitute" argument by saying that "pens and papers are, obviously, not substitutes of each other!" 


11:20 am:

Symbiosis Law School, Pune responds to the Apellants' reubttals. Speaker Two relies on cases to say that to show communication among cartel members mere agreements will suffice. "They don't have to shout it out from the roof!"


11:25 am:

Final Rounds of the 5th NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition, 2014 are now over. Judge Gouri says out loud what all of us sitting here are thinking - It's going to be a difficult task coming to a decision!

Judge Gouri says that the arguments from both sides were very well marshalled. She hopes that we all will, at some point of time, work for the Competition of Commission of Bohemia (India)! 

Stay tuned to find out who wins the 5th NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition, 2014!


12:07 pm:

The Valedictory Ceremony of the 5th NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition, 2014 has now begun! On this ocassion, the Centre for Competition Law and Policy, NLU, Jodhpur has launched its Working Paper Series - Competition Law Cirque


12:21 pm:

The wait is over! Here are the results:



Winners of the 5th NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition, 2014: Symbiosis Law School, Pune

Runners Up: NLU-Delhi

Best Student Advocate: Kriti Soni, NLU-Delhi

Second Best Student Advocate: Sonali Charak, NLSIU, Bangalore

Best Student Advocate of the Final Round: Gayatri Pradhan, Symbiosis Law School, Pune

Best Researcher: Deepan Shah, NLU-Delhi

Best Memorial: NUALS, Kochi



12:56 pm:

This is it for the 5th NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition, 2014. See you all next year at the 6th edition of our moot!






Read More]]> (NLUAntitrust) Mooting Premier League Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:17:17 +0530
Some documents that do not require registration There are several documents which are not compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Some of them require high stamp duty under the Karnataka Stamp Act and some of them do not. Even the ones which require high stamp duty, if they are under stamped, can be rectified later by paying a penal amount 10 times the original amount. Non payment of stamp duty does not make the document void or otherwise invalid. The consequences of under stamping as per the stamp act are 1. to make the document inadmissible for evidence before any authority capable of receiving evidence of before any public authority. 2. The document can also be impounded for enforcing the payment of full stamp value. An under stamped instrument can be admitted as evidence in court if penal stamp duty 10 times the value of the original amount is paid.

The following are the list of documents that do not require registration:
Power of attorney that is given except power to sell property 
Development agreement 
Agreement of sale given by a land owner to a developer 
Lease agreement Lease deed for less than one year
Memorandum of oral partition recording a past transaction. 
Power of Attorney: 

Registration: In many cases, a general or specific power of attorney need not be registered. The question of registration arises only if a power is given for the sale of immovable properties. The Indian Registration Act does not make a power of attorney compulsorily registerable. However, the Supreme court has recently ruled that a power of attorney given to sell immovable properties should be registered. It should be done at the office of the sub registrar within whose jurisdiction the person giving the power resides. If the person resides abroad, the power should be attested by the Indian consulate in that country. Such power of attorney should be used within 3 months from the date of its execution.

Stamp duty: The Karnataka Stamp Act prescribes the stamp duty to be paid on different types of power of attorneys. A power given to a close relative needs only Rs. 100/- stamp paper, even if it is to sell property. A power given to a person who is a non relative will attract a stamp duty of 2% of the market value of the property, which can be adjusted in the stamp duty payable on the sale deed. A power of attorney given to a developer will attract stamp duty at the rate of 4% on the market value of the property which is subject to a maximum of Rs 4 lakhs. This amount is not adjusted at the time of executing subsequent sale deeds.

Consequences of under stampingThe power of attorney: Can a sub registrar refuse to register a sale deed if the power of attorney produced by the person executing the sale deed is not properly stamped? Yes, the sub registrar can refuse to accept such a document for registration, provided he immediately gives the reason to be recorded in writing. Revocation of power of attorney It is now settled law that an irrevocable power of attorney given for consideration cannot be revoked.

Development agreement and Agreement to sell between land owner and developer: A development agreement is not required to be registered. This includes all construction contracts given to a developer. However it attracts a stamp duty of 4% of the market value of the property, subject to a maximum of Rs. 4 lakhs. If the developer properly stamps the agreement, then the power of attorney which is executed by the land owner in favour of the developer is exempted from stamp duty and requires only Rs. 100/-. The Stamp Act says that agreements of sale or M.O.U. given to a developer for construction, development, sale or transfer (in any manner whatsoever) of any immovable property in Karnataka attracts a stamp duty of 4% of the market value of the property subject to a maximum of Rs. 4 lakhs. Agreements of sale between the developer and the land owner should be made out as a simple agreement of sale accompanied with a separate contract to build between two parties which require only Rs. 200/- stamp paper. Possession should be taken separately and at a later date by the developer from the land owner.

An agreement to sell coupled with possession in the agreement itself will attract the same duty as a conveyance. The duty payable is adjusted later in the stamp duty towards the sale deed.Registration: A development agreement and an agreement of sale need not be registered under the Registration Act. It is hardly surprising therefore that there are hardly any development agreement or agreements of sale that are properly stamped. As already stated, an understamped document is not an invalid document. But want of registration cannot be cured, so documents that require compulsory registration should always be registered.Lease agreements and lease deed for less than one year: An agreement to lease without possession and a lease deed for less than one year need not be registered. However, if a lease for more than one year is drafted as a leave and licence deed or if the lease is found to commence from the date of agreement itself and if possession is found to be handed over, then the agreement to lease operates as a lease deed and should be registered if the period of lease is over 1 year.

The new rent control act has practically removed all statutory protection of tenants, but the high cost of stamp duty of a lease agreement or lease deed of less than one year continues to deter full stamping of such documents.

Stamp duty on agreement to lease and lease deed: Leases for more than one year attract a stamp duty of 5% on the average annual rent and 14.5% on the deposit. This duty can be reduced by showing some of the amounts in a separate amenities agreement which need not be registered. Agreements to lease and lease deeds for less than one year also require the same stamp duty as above but as they do not require registration, they never get properly stamped. 

Partition deed: A memorandum oral partition recording a past transaction need not be registered. A partition deed effecting partition in the deed itself required registration but the stamp duty is nominal and amounts to Rs. 200 to Rs. 1000 per share, depending on its location and nature of land. It is better to register a partition deed an it gives notice of the partition to everyone and the title is better protected.

In conclusion always register a document which is compulsorily registerable or for which stamp duty is not high. Documents for which stamp duty is high and which do not require registration do not become invalid for want of proper stamp duty alone. But the rights of both parties should be protected in case of default, so consult a lawyer. Always give possession separately and never in the documents itself.

Read More]]> (akhilv001) General blogging Tue, 04 Mar 2014 17:56:37 +0530