Ladies and Gentleman,

We at Chanakya National Law University, Patna (CNLU) have the honour to present to you the 14th Commonwealth Legal Education Association Moot Court Competition, 2014, (NATIONAL ROUNDS) The Commonwealth Legal Education Association (CLEA) has been organizing the CLEA Moot Court Competition in which Student Teams from universities from the Commonwealth compete for the Turnbull Shield. The Moot Court Competition has grown over the years and attracts the finest talent from the Commonwealth countries, providing a platform for students to participate, interact and learn from each other. In 2007 eleven teams competed in Nairobi, which was won by Macquarie University, Australia.
May the best team win!!!

Here is link to the Moot Problem and Rules of the competition http://www.cnlu.ac.in/2014/Moots/CLEA Moot 2014.pdf

The prizes of the competition is as follows:

Winner

Runner-up

Best Speaker

Best Lady Advocate

Best Memorial

Second Best Memorial

Best Team

The winner of the competition would book tickets for Glasgow, Scotland.

CNLU is very  proud to host the following teams from across the country.

1. NLIU BHOPAL

2. GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM

3. INSTITUTE OF LAW, NIRMA UNIVERSITY

4. NLU ORISSA

5. NLSIU

6. FACULTY OF LAW, BHU

7. RIZVI LAW COLLEGE, MUMBAI

8. NLU DELHI

9. SAVEETHA SCHOOL OF LAW

10. UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES, GGSIP

11. IMS LAW SCHOOL, DEHRADUN

12. ITMU, GURGAON (SCHOOL OF LAW)

13. LLOYD LAW COLLEGE, GREATER NOIDA

14. SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE

15. GNLU

16. UPES DEHRADUN

17. UILS PUNJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

18. INSTITUTE OF LAW KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY

19. FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD

20. NUSRL RANCHI

21. TNNLS

22. PUNJAB SCHOOL OF LAW, PUNJAB UNIVERSITY, PATIALA

23. SUBHARTI UNIVERSITY, MEERUT

24. NUJS KOLKATA

25. SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST UNIVERSITY BANGALORE

26. RGNUL PATIALA

27. AMITY LAW SCHOOL, AMITY UNIVERSITY, HARYANA

28. CHHOTA NAGPUR LAW COLLEGE, RANCHI

29. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES, SILIGURI, WEST BENGAL

30. FACULTY OF LAW, MODY UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,RAJASTHAN

31. BANGALORE INSITITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

The clock has already started ticking. It is only a matter of few hours when 31 teams would lock horns against each other. We at CNLU would keep you updated with every twist and turn in the course of the competition. The same would include match ups, round updates and speaker performances. Do tune in to support your respective teams. We go live at 11.00 am sharp. 

Happy Mooting!!!

Blogging and Media Team

CNLU, Patna

A very good morning to all of you!!!

                                                                       PRELIM ROUNDS 1 SLOT 1 (11.00 - 12.30)

The match ups are as follows:

C. NO 1.  KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY v IMS LAW SCHOOL, DEHRADUN

C. NO. 2  LLOYD LAW COLEGE V NLIU BHOPAL

C. NO. 3. AMITY LAW SCHOOL, HARYANA V CNLU PATNA (NON-COMPETING)

C. NO. 4. UILS, PUNAB UNIVERSITY V INDIAN INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES, SILIGURI

C NO. 5.  SUBHARTI UNIVERSITY, MEERUT V ITMU, GURGAON

C. NO. 6. FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD V GLC ERNAKULAM

C. NO. 7. SYMBIOSIS PUNE V INSTITUTE OF LAW, NIRMA UNIVERSITY

C. NO. 8. NUSRL RANCHI V RIZVI LAW COLLEGE, MUMBAI

The judges have arrived. 

11.32 AM

LLOYD LAW COLLEGE V NLIU BHOPAL : The judges are intensely going through the memos. The first speaker from LLOYD takes to the dias. He is asked to proceed to the issues. He starts pleading on negligent behaviour, tortious liability and duty of care. As expected the first speaker is being asked questions on jurisdiction. He is imply being bombarded with questions!! the judges are puzzling him with questions regarding compensation, jurisdiction and injuction. The firt speaker was left fummoxed. They could not satifactorily anwer the question.

KURUKSHETRA V IMS DEHRADUN : The first speaker from the plaintiff side has had a smooth sail. He was asked a few questions which he could handle with ease. The judges are patiently litening to the second speaker from the paintiffs side. It seems that the judges have decided to go easy on the participants. The judges are astonished beyond imagination-- THE COMPENSATION ASKED FOR IS 23 CRORES. Now thats a little too much.

AMITY HARYANA V CNLU : Similar questions on jusrisdiction. They are being questioned extensively on the quantum of damages and the prescribed dosage of medicines. The Desai case was cited. The plaintiffs were asked to sum up their arguments.

11.55

NUSRL V RIZVI : The judges are in no mood to spare anyone on the aspect of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs are being questioned again and again on pecuniary jurisdiction.

UILS v IILS : The plaintiffs seem utterly perplexed. They have been asked about composite negligence. The second counsel is being grilled on patient undertaking contract and standard form of contracts. This room is griling them on basics. the argument is surrounded on issues concerning consessus ad idem. The judge seems to have enough bouncers in his kitty.

12.03

SYMBIOSIS V NIRMA: The level of questions from the bench is altogether on an entirely different paradigm. Asked where "Your Lordships" have been stated. This was a googly. The bench subsequenty answers the question. The plaintiff has failed to establish whether the hospital is necessary party to the suit. Bombarded with questions on civil procedure. The co counsel is aked to substantiate hi claims on basis of why the drug should not have been continued. The wicket is very sticky. The plaintiff was questioned repeatedly on the evidence adduced by him on basis of which a favourable judgement might be passed. Very gruelling indeed.

12.13

NUSRL is having a hard time convincing the judges on the issues framed out by them.

The second speaker from LLOYD is told by the judges that she is in the wrong courtroom. the judge makes a straight face and tells them that they have no pecuniary jurisdiction.

In court toom no 5, the first speaker from SUBHARTI UNIVERSITY is lambasted by the judges. The team is completely on backfoot. The speakers seem extremely underconfident and shaky.

12.19

Now this is some rea blunder by the team from IILS, SILIGURI. They have invoked provisions of CrPC which ought not to have been. They are asked to speak on facts.

The first speaker from NLIU BHOPAL takes to the dias. They seem extremely confident and has a very good body language. He pleads on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction. They say that the case at hand is not maintainable.

NLIU BHOPAL seems very well prepared and well researched. They are citing judgements one after the other.

12.25

In court room no 7, both SYMBIOSIS and NIRMA are told that they are not aware a to how suits are instituted and how issues are framed. This clearly gives us an understanding that BASICS is your bible. NIRMA contends that a defendant cannot be made liable under composite negligence. The judge asks the defendant not to begin a submission with a case law and that it reflects poorly on their part. (Lord save both these teams)!!

12.30

The plaintiffs ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY were given a choice to either amend their prayer or that their case would be dismissed. The judges once again, refuse to accept precedents for which the counsel cannot narrate the facts. The speakers are mixing up everything. They seem to be landed on unchartered territory. (Enough on territorial jurisdiction)

The plaintiffs are in for some deep trouble in Court Room No. 5. The second speaker could not differentiate between respondents and defendants. ITMU Gurgaon is being grilled badly for twisting facts of the case at hand. The judge asks them on whether a particular judgement is binding on the court.

The team from CNLU is being grilled on the Malay Kumar case. The judge seems very convinced with the speaker. They are finding ways to dodge every question being put to them. The proceedings end in Court Room No. 3. (AMITY HARYANA V CNLU) come to an end.

12.42

SYMBIOSIS V NIRMA : There seems to be a bit of confusion. The first speaker from NIRMA succumbs to the argument by the bench that the subsequent ailments were as a result of overdose. The bench seems unconvinced by the submissions of the speaker. They were unable to firmly stand ground and could not provide any document when asked by the court. The econd speaker is extremely nervous and is admitting to facts. They are unabe to answer what cause of action is and pleads ignorance. This is an extremely fun round.

12.48

GLC ERNAKULAM is literally being rebuked for citing only 2 judgements in their memo. On the other hand the bench in court room no 2, seems to buy the arguments the the lady makes.

NLIU BHOPAL has pleaded well and seems to have a strong case. The judges approve of the second speaker. Can she steal this round?

NUSRL has had their goof ups. The bench comments on the lack of authoritative texts.

Our pick for this round: SYMBIOSIS v NIRMA. Both the teams have been grilled beyond their imagination. I am sure they would not have comprehended this much. The round ends with a bang.

                                                                        PRELIM ROUND 1 -  SLOT 2

1. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY V NLOU

2. UPES DEHRADUN V SAVEETHA SCHOOL OF LAW

3. CHRIST UNIVERSITY V BANGALORE INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES (BILS)

4. TNNLS v NLUD

5. GNLU V MODY UNIVERSITY

6. RGNUL v BHU

7. CHHOTA NAGPUR V GGSIP

8. NUJS v NLS

1.26

GNLU V MODY UNIVERSITY: The plaintiff straightaway comes to the issue of jurisdiction. Sums up the facts in a minute. The judge starts questioning them. They are asked to state the difference between examination and diagnosis. Counsel fails to answer a particular fact of the case. The judge tells them that domicile is not a bar and also tells them to go and sue in an UK court. ( Who wil sponsor their flight tickets??) The judge tels them not to use fancy words. This is getting insanely complicate. The bench asks the difference between civit suit and suit of civil nature (I wish I had studied CPC). They are further being grilled on double actionability rule.

RGNUL v BHU : We see the same kinds of questions being asked by the bench. The first speaker from RGNUL could not answer the facts of the Gurudayal Singh case. Looks puzzled.

1.35

NUJS V NLS : At the very outset NUJS have been served with a DOOSRA. The first speaker from NUJS puts forth his arguments in support of jurisdiction. The judge taks about flying off to the UK again. we have impy gone international now. The bench asks whether they can lay down laws. The counsel answers in affirmative. Judge asks for authority: Counsel answers that such can be done on grounds of justice and equity. The bench puts another lollipop. NUJS seems to be sailing fine. Could tackle this with ample ease.

1.37

UPES DEHRADUN v SAVEETHA : The first speaker is being very submissive. She satisfied the bench on the question put to her on the aspect of res judicata.

CHHOTA NAGPUR v GGSIP : The war of words is getting a litte intense. They say that they have filed a suit. Oops!!! Badly grilled. They must have started feeling the heat. They refer to the other team as respondents. CPC CPC CPC!!!

PUNJAB UNIVERSITY V NLUO : Plaintiff is baically pleading facts. Compensation amount is again astronomical. (48crs)...(What were they exactly thinking??) They prayer seems to have caught the judges attention. The arguments of the defendants have already begun. The major issue of medical negligence is being fiercely mooted here.

1.50

GNLU is being questioned on prudency of precripting drugs. The bench questions them on how to repudiate a contract as it protects the doctors. Second counsel seemed confident. Summarised their well. Over for the paintiffs.

UPES wrongly pleads that they are defendants. The judges go very easy. They seem to be a little nervous. The bench is launching one barrage after the other.

1.57

The second speaker from CHHOTA NAGPUR is in an utter state of confusion. They are being juggled on issues of composite negligence. The judges do not seem to be convinced by their arguments.

TNNLS V NLUD : TNNLS has conveniently assumed that the disease has been caused my weather change. That is atrocious. They have moulded facts in their favour and is lambasted by the bench. They are asked to satisfy on facts and told not to go on commentary. They seem to be totaly beating around the bush.

2.03

RGNUL V BHU : The first speaker manages to evade the quetions that have been put to him and seems to be shifting the entire burden to co counsel. He very well bases his argument on the principle of double actionability. The bench is not too harsh on them and is very forgiving.

MODY UNIVERSITY: The first speaker is in soup. The bench questions them on validity of injunction and recognition of anti suit recognised by English Courts. They are being questioned further on the relevancy of this provision in case of a district court.

2.20

GGSIP have concluded. CHHOTA NAGPUR, RANCHI is again being given lessons on CPC. The judge tells the ady advocate to find out particular provisions of a statute. She is left completely dumbfounded.

There has been one thing that particularly draws the attention of us. It has been the compensation amount. It seems that many teams have been extremely hasty and unreasonable in deciding the compensation amount in a medical negligence case. Teams have pleaded as high as 50 cr rupees. 

2.27

SAVEETHA is being questioned on nature of drugs and their efficacy.

2.37

BHU is being asked the maening of reasonable care. There is an intense exchange of argument between the bar and the bench. BHU has gone too far. They have asked the bench not to create a situation like a double edged knife. HOLY S***!! Judges are stunned.

NLU DELHI: They are being heavily questioned on international precedents, their bindingness and pervasiveness. They are asked to prove that an act is of direct consequence. The co counsel is asked about the implication of Hague Ratification.

The first preliminary round was held in two slots and have concluded. We would be back shortly with the second preliminary round which would also be held in two slots.

                                                                    PRELIM 2 SLOT 1

Match Ups:

1. IILS, SILIGURI V AMITY, HARYANA

2. NLUO V RGNUL, PATIALA

3. ITMU, GURGAON V FACULTY OF LAW ALLAHABAD

4. BHU V SYMBIOSIS PUNE

5. GLC ERNAKULAM V CHRIST UNIVERSITY

6. NIRMA V LLOYD LAW COLLEGE

7. NLU DELHI V UPES DEHRADUN

8. MODY UNIVERSITY v NUSRL RANCHI

THE NUMBERS AGAINST THE MATCH UPS ARE INDICATIVE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE COURT ROOM NOs.

NLUO V RGNUL, PATIALA: The first speaker from NLUO is briefing the judges about the facts of the case. His argument is almost instantaneously cut short because he has twisted the facts and assumed it in his favour. He makes his arguments feebly. He seeks permission to satisfy the court on maintainability and anti suit injunction. The point of maintainability does go down well with the judges.

4.15

NLU DELHI v UPES DEHRADUN : The bench launches a volley of attacks, questioning the first speaker from NLUD on issues of jurisdiction and entitlement of pecuniary, non pecuniary or punitive compensation. They are questioned as to why they never approached the consumer forum. This is indeed some very incisive questioning from the bench.

BHU V SYMBIOSIS PUNE: The bench asks them to state a particular quantum of compensation. ( The teams hav e been demanding nothing short of a crore). BHU pleads ignorance repeatedly. Not a very good sign and somewhat hackneyed argumentation. They are being grilled on the point of qualification of the doctor. They confidently state that the doctor was not qualified. (Making such shocking assumptions)

4.19

GLC ERNAKULAM V CHRIST UNIVERSITY: The bench is this room is in no mood to spare the plaintiffs. The judges are all set to dismiss the case of the plaintiffs because they have some glaring defects in their submissions. They have not made the hospital a necessary party. The bench ha come down heavily upon them asking them to withdraw their case. The second speaker is not having a smooth sail after such a debacle. 

He is not trying to satisfy but pacify the bench.

4.30

ITMU, GURGAON V FACULTY OF LAW ALLAHABAD:  The bench is extremely proactive in this room. They have asked the defendants whether they have any objection in the jurisdiction. The first speaker is unable to satisfy the bench on the correctness of the forum.They bench again chuckles to the amount of compenation that has been asked for. It is again a whopping 70 crores. 

NLUD : Their endurance is being put to test and Delhi seems to be doing a good job. The speaker wearing specs is doing a pretty good job. He argues humbly. 

4.40

IILS v AMITY, HARYANA : IILS have axed their own feet.They have invoked provisions of CrPC and IPC. They have accpted their blunder and wants to argue. The bench tells them that they have to argue what is not their in the memo at their own peril.

NIRMA V LLOYD LAW COLLEGE : Nirma seems extremely underconfident. They have actually failed to answer what coercion and consent means. They are again being asked questions on joinder of necesary parties.

We take great pride in our hospitality. After successfully conducting our PD we are back again with the Commonwealth Moot in almost two weeks time. 

GLC ERNAKULAM is having a very tough time indeed. They have been accused of misleading the court. They are not well versed with their memorials. They have struggled to find a case law which they have cited. The bench have indicated their displeasure at this. But their spirit is commendable. The defendants CHRIST UNIVERSITY is told that they have been negligent in interpreting facts.

NLUD has attacked the line of treatment. They lay emphasis on the aspect of supportive care. It is time for UPES Dehradun to consolidate their stand.

4.55

The first speaker from ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY. They have been quick to amend their application of compensation from 70 crs to 1 crore ( Hahahah!! Thats what we call modesty) The judge asks them if they were bribed. The first speaker is confident and firmly states her case. The bench states that the submissions are absurd and cannot be taken into account.

WAIT WAIT WAIT!!!! SURPRISEEEEEE!!!

The defendant comes up with the said drug in the court. ABRACADABRA!! They also refer to the warning slip attached to the medicine and dosage. (The court room has surprisingly turned into a pharmacy). 

UPES DEHRADUN : The bench seems to have taken it upon them to decide this matter. It  dos not seem like a moot. UPES is being grilled on technicalities and they bear a bewildered look.

NIRMA was horribly confused between coercion and undue influence. 

5.10

The second speaker from RGNUL sails smoothly and answers each and every question to the satisfaction of the bench. They are told that consent cannot be taken as a defence in cases of medical negligence. He manages to evade.

LLOYD has been asked to read the CPC and bombards them with questions on technical aspects which include framing of suit, basic civil procedures. They seem to argue against their conscience.

I hope we have not missed out on any serious screw ups. 

Both GLC ERNAKULAM AND CHRIST UNIVERSITY  have been disallowed to pray. Rebutalls being put forth.

The fire alarms have been activated. Smoke all round. This round comes to an end. We wil begin with the last preliminary round shortly. Stay tuned!!!

                                                                         PRELIM ROUND 2 SLOT 2 

5.48

RIZVI V GNLU

NLS V SUBHARTI MEERUT

GGSIP V KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY

BILS V UILS PUNJAB

IMS DEHRADUN V NUJS KOLKATA

SAVEETHA LAW SCHOOL V TNNLS

NLIU BHOPAL V PUNJAB SCHOOL OF LAW

CNLU V CHHOTA NAGPUR

NLS v SUBHARTI UNIVERSITY, MEERUT: The first speaker from NLS begins with his submissions.The bench is interested in knowing th angle of breach of duty. The first speaker from NLS keeps calm, answers the queries swiftly. 

NLIU BHOPAL v PUNJAB SCHOOL OF LAW : The question posed to the first speaker of NLIU Bhopal is on Section 26 of CPC and the City Civil Courts Act. There is a bit of juggling here. NLIU is repeatedly being put through the wringer but the speaker doesnot lose his composure at any given point of time. 

GGSIP v KURUKSHETRA : There is some twist here. We are being told that the judges want to hear the defendants first. They demand the provision in support of jurisdiction. The defendant have surprisingly no problem to the jurisdiction. :P

CNLU v CHHOTANAGPUR : CNLU has been told to go to Birmingham court. They have successfully defended themselves and jutified their stand. But they fail to satisfy the bench on the issue of pecuniary damages.

The jurisdiction is the bone of contention. Being argued very persuasively by all the teams.

6.16

The first speaker from CNLU seem to have shifted his entire burden to his co counsel (Poor fellow)!! The judges leave no opportunity to mock them.

Jurisdiction is again under scanner for RIZVI LAW COLLEGE. But the best part is that the participants seem to be very happy after all that grilling. The round is proceeding well.

SAVEETHA LAW v TNNLS : After having a rollercoaster ride with jurisdiction, Saveetha is in for some trouble. They are unable to state the esentials of contract.

Opinions and evidences seem to pose a bit of trouble for BILS. They are confused whether such can be deemed to be evidences. UILS PUNJAB is being questioned on the usage of the word Claimant as opposed to Respondent. 

KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY : They seem to be harping on facts. Moreover the lady was reading from the memorial. She seemed shaky.

IMS DEHRADUN V NUJS KOLKATA : First counsel from NUJS convinces the judges on the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction. However the bench seems completely disinterested to entertain any argument on conflict of laws. The second speaker bases his arguments on presumptions. Judge wary!!! Contempating facts to their advantage. The second speaker seems to have good legal skills. But he is too dependent on chits passed. Judges appreciate their research.

SUBHARTI UNIVERSITY :  They have pleaded well. They are relying on case laws and passes the same to the bench. The bench seems satisfied. 

The team from SAVEETHA has been rebuked for using "Ya Ya". They are not well acquainted with the memo. Their memo pages are not numbered. They have not been able to differentiate between tort and torts. 

6.55

CNLU has been grilled, fried and roasted on the issue of administration of the drug. CHHOTA NAGPUR seems to very ignorant of the law. They are jumping to conclusions without even tacking the core issues related to the problem. They have referred to their memo as fact sheets. They have also cited English case laws which doesnot have a bearing at all. 

GGSIP have come up with some very forceful rebuttals. They seem extremely convincing. They have shown a repor twhich shows that Depomedrol cannot be used on minor rashes.

TNNLS speaker gets a little rude. Not the best display of mannerism and court etiquettes. (Should attend Professional Ethics Class regularly)

Its rebuttals everywhere. We have almost reached the end of the Preliminary Rounds. Teams cross over and shake hands. Its time for some Chai and Samosa. We should be annoucing the Quarter Final breaks in half an hour. Stay tuned with the Love Charger : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q48tagwurUw

 The matchups for the Quarter Finals is as follows :

1. BILS, BANGALORE V NUJS KOLKATA

2. NLSIU BANGALORE V NLIU BHOPAL

3. RGNUL PATIALA V GNLU, GANDHINAGAR

4. NLU DELHI V FACULTY OF LAW, ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY

 THE NUMBERS AGAINST THE MATCH UPS ARE INDICATIVE OF THEIR RESPECTIVE COURT ROOM NOs.

BILS V NUJS : The bench does not allow BILS to breathe. Straightway asks them the reason as to why they have used the term consumer. The bench tells BILS that they cannot go forum hunting. BILS have submitted their jurisdiction to India. They invoke Sec 19 of CPC. The first speaker, initially a bit hesitant, has been able to answer the questions posed by the bench. BILS invokes Sec 1 of Fatal Accidents Act. The judge baffles them by saying that they cannot com under that section. The bench asks them the difference between examination and diagnois and what preceeds what.

RGNUL v GNLU : The speaker from the side plaintiff goes up to the dias. RGNUL is stuck on the question of pecuniary jurisdiction. The bench would not let them proceed. The rounds have suddenly grown tougher. 

NLIU v NLSIU : The first speaker is unclear on whether he is a plaintiff, claimant or petitioner. But he displays exemplary court etiquettes. 

NLUD v ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY : The very first question is again on jurisdiction. The speaker answers this question to the satisfaction of the bench.The speaker from NLUD says that the hospital is vicariously liable but his memo says that hospital incurs no liability. The court does not seem that satisfied. But again by virtue of it being the quarters, judges do bear that look. NLUD has not been able to answer the procedure for filing a civil suit.

NLIU pleads that Deprementol was not the correct drug which was to be administered. She also pleads that the terms of the contract is unfair. We ee a new line of argumentation by the NLIU speaker. She also pleads that the client was dependant on the deceased. The bench says that they were not dependants. NLIU has been badly grilled during the prayer. The counsel chooses to focus more on the issue of compensation. Cites a SC judgment but fails to satisfy.

NLS begin with their arguments, by asking the court to grant anti suit injunction, so that the case does not go back to the UK.

NLUD was persuasive but the bench remarked that their views on vicarious liability was disastrous. The bench strikes a bargain with the counsel. But the speaker denies the offer. They are asked the difference between writ and suit proceeding. Speaker answers incorrectly. The bench hold this to be silly. We are definitely seeing some very incisive questioning by the bench. Speaker points out the aspect of excessive damage.  

BILS first speaker comes up and refutes the conjectures regarding jurisdiction. States that they intend to appear before only this learned court and do not want to file a case in the consumer forum or in the UK. The speaker was very impressive and makes two valid points in her entire submission which the bench remarked as duly noted. Firstly mere examination without investigation elaborates the liability of the defendant 1. Secondly that the time gap between dosage was not followed which significantly proves that the procedure was not duly followed. BILS had a condensed and a comprehensive matter fortified with adequate authorities. But they were grilled on their prayer and point of law which they managed to dodge due to thorough research.

NUJS begin on a impressive note contorting the facts of the case to their advantage. They quote the patient undertaking cum guidelines as an adduced evidence thereby pleading innocence for both the defendants as there was informed consent on part of the plaintiff in the very first instance. They were grilled on the usage of the word - duress. The were themselves repenting the use. There was a dissent in the opinion of both the counsels. The also struck a bargain with the court regarding anti injunction suit and conceded to the point of negligence.

Malaria in Court Room 2. NLS has compared a very serious disease to malaria. The counsel has held his nerve really well. He extensive uses medical jurisprudence to support his contention. They again contend that SC has made incorrect observations. At this stage NLS is unaware whether the woman had died at Kolkata or Gurgaon.

AU was not that impressive. No fresh line of arguments. Counter attack from AU during rebuttal but NLUD holds good ground.

RGNUL v GNLU : RGNUL was as usual grilled on jurisdiction. They got  trapped in very basic legal concepts and did not have sufficient authorities to justify their arguments. Prayer was a pain for both GNLU and RGNUL. But both the teams had an extremely positive mindset and spoke with conviction. GNLU was somewhat struggling with one of their issues. They wanted to switch speakers but was disallowed by the bench. The judges are also a little displeased by the lack of judicial precedent.

The atmosphere is heavily charged. We wait as the tabs are being evaluated. 4 teams compete for the TURNBULL SHIELD

We would be back in half an hour!!!

The teams that lock horns tomorrow:

Semi Final Match Ups:

NLIU BHOPAL V NUJS KOLKATA

NLSIU BANGALORE V BILS,BANGALORE

Good night everyone!! Happy Mooting!! 

Tomorrow 9 am sharp.

 Ladies and gentlemen we are live and hot...and so is the atmosphere inside Court Room 1 where BILS is battling NLSIU Bangalore.

BILS continues to imress the bench with their logical and comprehensive arguments mostly revolving around the facts of the case coated with substantial instances from the relevant statutes and procedural aspects of medical practice and the legality surrounding it. Speaker 1 is impressive with clear cut arguments contending the wrong dosage of Depomedrol by the Defendants. She shifts the onus of contending and convincing the panel with regard to the composite medical negligence on part of the defendants. she is grilled on the aspects of medical expertise surrounding the case and is also questioned on various issues of dosage and normal course of medication followed in an event of emergency. The prayer asking for the compensation also comes into question here as the bench inquires into the mode of calculation. Speaker 2 too keeps to a safer side of the arguments and seemingly incessat volley of questions fired at her are dodged by her owing to fine research. she manages to cpnvince the bench partially on account of the liability of the defendants on the administering of the dosage amounting to negligence.

Meanwhile another battle rages hot inside Court room 2 where the matchup of NLIU Bhopal and NUJS Kolkata.

Speaker 1 begins his line of arguments and is soon cut short by the bench on the question of Juristdiction and the court seems to be in two minds as to the appliicability of appropriate law and here the Speaker is on backfoot and tries to shift the onus on the second speaker. Speaker 2 approaches the podium with a heavy burden and looking every bit nervous and tries to satisfy the bench on the issue of negligence on part of the defendants. The judges surprisingly question as to how the deceased was shifted to the hospital vis-a-vis the mode of transportation. asked to summarise the submission and finally MALAY KUMAR GANGULY case comes in their prayer

 Back in Court Room 1 as NLS takes to the Floor serving freshly baked arguments.. a treat you just can't ignore. Speaker 1 brigs to the floor the conflict of laws, Section19 of CPC comes up regarding jurisdiction. The counsel impressively answered the qiuestion regarding the mode of calculation and as to why the Medical Malpractices Act should not apply here. Doctrine of proper law is again put up and Anti Injunction suit is again questioned. Speaker 2 again challenges the plaintiff's authoritative  th basis of submission of credibility and is moderately to the bench.

Time for REBUTTALS: Plaintiff Speaker 1 questions wthe applicability of the error of judgement which amounts to medical negligence and on this instance quoted the Malaya Kumar Ganguly case and the Spring Meadows case. The bench is non responsive on this instance and also disregarded the Bolam's Case and also brought to the bench's notice the standard procedure which was not followed by the defendants. they relied on weird authorities including a medical online blog which they claimed to be an authority.

The defendants argued that improper diagnosis is not held to be an error which was corroborated by citing severla autorities. All in all it was balanced NLS side with coherent speeches and condensed and comprehensive arguments while BILS were in complete disarray. proceedings finished . ALL RISE!

 BACK AGAIN in the face off between NLIU v. NUJS the Bhopalis come to the dias as defendants  and no sooner have they begun with the speech are cut short by the bench on the distinction between defendants and respondents and subsequently the volley of questions thrown at the speaker manage to make him concede to amend his plaint and there is yet aother positive fightback from the speaker to convince them on his stand in the issue of medical negligence. The judges are certainly enjoying the gruelling atmosphere in this room. both the speakers though imprssive sounded cocky during the starting of the speech but emerged to be much more confident and convincing towards the end. Since the Speakers had exceeded the time limit the judges awarded 2  minutes for rebuttals and sur rebuttals and weird points emerge from both the sides though nothing substantial comes up.

as proceedings end we eagerly await the results...
wait up for the finalists as the GRAND FINALE starts at 12..
STAY TUNED!!

 NOW THIS IS OFFICIAL!

NLIU and NLSIU get through and the stage is now set for the GRAND FINALE of the CLEA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2014.

IN THE finals of the competition we have NLSIU (plaintiff) v. NLIU (defendants)

we resume the proceedings in 10 minutes...

amidst a 5 judge bench we start with the proceedings as the first Spealer from NLSIU yields to the dias 

The Speaker 1 on behalf of the Plaintiffs pleads medical negligence on behalf of the Defendants and that ththermore te breach of duty resulted in the damage and loss of life for the plaintiff's client. Furthermore  the speaker also contends that the administrattion Depomedrol was excees in nature and that the prescription was without any diagnosis the defendants had thus deviated from standard protocol in this instance . The Speaker also managed to raise certain Commonwealth and American Jurisdical principles and also managed to impress upon the judge the applicability of these principles in the present scenario. However, the building pressure takes its toll on the speaker wherein the speaker wrongly quotes that the defendants are not liable. the humorous turn of events are testimony of the charged envirionment in the  court room. having justified the rationale behind the MALAYA GANGULY CASE to the plaintiffs advantage the speaker spoke on the Butfor test at length and connected to the breach of duty of care in this case.

The Speaker 2 on behalf of the Plaintiffs begins his submissions by elaborating on the methods of compensation and loss of consortium has to be compensated. The judges question the speaker extensively in this regard which the cousel counters by referring to restoration priciple prevalent in the United States. The Counsel also impressed upon the court the right to approach the courts of UK on the basis of Doctrine of lis alibi pendens. owing to superior research the counsel elaborated on lex causa and lex fori and which of them were applicable to Indian context. On the question of Doctrine of election the Speaker was completely prepared and armed with his research to counter te judges's question.

Amidst poised speeches from NLSIU and jittery pressure cooker situation here Speaker 1 from NLIU on behalf of the Defendants approaches the podium looking every bit confident. The Speaker confidently speaks as to why the acts of the defendants were not negligent as the inaccurate diagnosis of a disease is not testimony of negligence. The Speaker tries to prove meticulously how the Defendant 1 had used adequately reasonable medication. On being questioned whether the Defendants had overlooked the treatment in the first place the speaker impressively answered that the standard dosage prescribed by the manufacturers is not conclusive of the fact that it is bindingupon the physician who has to use his own prudence which varies from patient to patient on the basis of subjective symptoms. The Speaker also impressed upon the court the Usage of the Bolam test and not the Bolitho test which the Plaintiff had upheld. the Speaker also contended that the dosage administered was in consonance with the medical needs of the patient at that pi]oint of time. here too the speaker brought to the court's notice that no cause of death was established. Submissions from the SPeaker were poignant and to-the-point  and comprehensively stated backed by ample amount os study which helped him dodge several cocky and twisted questions with ease.

The Second Speaker now yields to the bench and intends to carry on the onus from where the first speaker left. The Speaker begins with the fact that in the present case there was free and informed consent on part of the Plaintiff and on this instance referred to the patient undertaking cum guideline document. The Counsel also emphasised on the fact and proved the point with the help of case laws . the Speaker further pleaded that the Defendants would have to face DOUBLE LITIGATION leading to the extorting of the claime compensation. The Judge appreciated the plaintiffs right in this instance for the want of a higher amount of compensation that may be awarded subject tot application to England on which the speaker reiterated the fact that the present forum wold be the best place to adjudicate the matter owing to the cause of action in the present instance. The Speaker also referred to the Hague Convention of which India and England are signatories  and requested the judge to grant an ANTI SUIT INJUNCTION in the present matter.

 time for Rebuttals:

The Speaker from the Plaintiffs(NLSIU) cited an authority in the matter of the conflict of laws pertaining to jurisdiction and also said that the damages were to be quantified as per lex fori. 

in the SURREBUTTALS:

the information about the depomedrol and its effect which were known to medical practitioners was reiterated and lis alibi comes up again the remaining featured argument s revolve around the claim amount and the jurisdiction

WHILE the proceedings now come to a closure... we eagerly await the tabulation of the scores as the competition would eventually reveal a final victor...

STAY with us as we await the final results in jittery anticipation...

Winners :NLIU BHOPAL

RUNNER UP- NLSIU BANGALORE

BEST ADVOCATE : APARNA RATURI, NLIU BHOPAL

BEST LADY ADVOCATE : APARNA RATURI, NLIU BHOPAL

BEST TEAM :NLSIU BANGALORE

BEST MEMORIAL : NLU DELHI

SECOND BEST MEMORIAL : NLSIU BANGALORE

We are signing off from CNLU...Happy Mooting guys!!!!!

We have had some problem in the round of BILS. We apologise for some unintentional errors on our part only in their round. We shall correct them shortly.