The Sixth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition is being organized and hosted by the National Law University, Jodhpur between March 20-22, 2015.

This competition is being organised in association with Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A. Shroff & Co., along with the knowledge partner, LexisNexis, and under the patronage of the Competition Commission of India.

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 over 30 teams competing for a chance to win the trophy, prize money worth Rs. 50,000 and coveted internships at Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A. Shroff & Co.

Further details can be found here:

http://www.nlujodhpur.ac.in/antitrust.php

Awards

Winning Team: Rupees 20,000

Runners Up Team: Rupees 12,000

Best Memorandum: Rupees 6,000

Best Researcher: Rupees 2,000

Best Student Advocate: Rupees 5,000

Second Best Student Advocate: Rupees 3,000

Best Student Advocate of the Finals: Rupees 2,000

The preliminary rounds start tomorrow at 2:30 p.m. The results and other details will be regularly updated, so keep checking the blog to see how your college is faring. The final rounds will be covered LIVE on Sunday. So, stay tuned!

--------------------------------------

[20th March 2015, Friday]

The Sixth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition, 2015 has commenced! The inauguration ceremony was held yesterday on 20th March, 2015 and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Ambwani, Chief Justice, Rajasthan High Court and Chancellor, National Law University, Jodhpur was the Guest of Honour. 
The Competition began on an enthusiastic note, which could be felt throughout the day, when the Preliminary rounds were conducted.
The results of the Preliminary rounds will be declared today and the qualifying teams will then, battle their way through the next set of rounds.
Keep checking this space for more updates, as the moot is officially on!

--------------------------------------

[21st March 2015, Saturday]

The preliminary rounds are now over. After two gruelling rounds for each team over two days, the best 8 have emerged. The teams that have made it to the quarter-finals are:

• Amity Law School, Indraprastha University, Delhi
• Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow
• Jindal Global Law School
• National Law Institute University, Bhopal 
• National Law School of India University, Bangalore
• National Law University, Delhi
• Symbiosis Law School, Pune
• West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences

Watch this space for more!

--------------------------------------

[21st March 2015, Saturday]

We are now into the Semi-Finals of the Sixth NLU Antirtrust Law Moot Court Competition, 2015. The following teams are batlling it out currently:

• Amity Law School, Indraprastha University, Delhi
• Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow
• Jindal Global Law School
• National Law Institute University, Bhopal 

Only the best out of these teams will emerge as Finalists and fight for the Cup! 

--------------------------------------

[21st March 2015, Saturday]

 And making it to the Finals are  National Law Institute University, Bhopal and Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. May the Best Team win! 

--------------------------------------

[22nd March 2015, Sunday]

The finals are now on!

Mr.John Handoll, Mr. Yaman Verma and  Mr. U C Nahta are adjudicating the competition.

National Law Institute University, Bhopal is arguing their case from the Appellant's side. 

At 9:05 a.m.:

The Counsel I is taking up the first two issues. She submits that independent service providers are not a viable alternative. 

At 9:10 a.m.:

Counsel I further submits that primary market need to be differentiated from after market.

At 9:12 a.m.:

Counsel I submits that there is neither an intraband or interbrand competition.

At 9.18 am:

The second counsel for the appellant starts her arguments. She shall be dealing with the issue of cartalization of the Bohemian Medical Organisation.

At 9.23 am:

She subimts that to define relevant market we need to distinguish between primary and after market. She explains that after market comprises of 2 service providers- independent and authorized.

At 9.25 am:

She subimts that in the given  case, the cost of initial investment to the cist of repairs is reasonably inferred to be high, thus locking the customer in.

At 9.28 am:

She submits that it is illogical to presume that an increse in the proice of an MRI machine would lead to decrese in its demand.

At 9.30 am:

The counsel proceeds to the issue of dominance according to Section 4(a) of the Competition Act.

At 9.32 am:

The judge asked her who's position is strengthened by assuming that authorised service providers are a safer bet. The counsel replies that it is indeed the MRI manufacturers who's position is strengthened.

At 9.35 am:

The counsel then establishes that there has been abusie dominance.

At 9.37 am:

The counsel goes on to establish whether the Bohemian Medical Association has acted as a cartal? She proves this by stating that there have been negotiated rates which were exclusively decided. Both these components indicate cartalization. There has also been an agreement between the hospitals to fix rates.

At 9.39 am:

The appelants rest their case and the respondents then proceed with their arguments. 

At 9.40 am:

The first speaker is arguing the three powers and duties of the Director General. It is stated that the DG is acting ultra vires the scope of reference.

At 9.45 am:

The first speaker then moves on to the second issue of abuse of dominance.

At 9.47 am:

The counsel submits that no lock has been created in the present case.

At 9. 50 am:

The first speaker submits that it is necessary to establish that there is an objective or legitimate justification for the actions of the MRI manufacturers. He states thatconsumers have counterveiling buying power and that this dilutes the dominant position of his clients.

At 9.52 am:

The judge asks him to explain what dilution of dominance is. The speaker explains that antitrust laws do not prohibit dominance in the market, and only bar abuse of such dominance. His clients have not engaged in such abusive dominance.

At 9.55 am:

The counsel says that the higher prices have been charged for quality services. He draws a distinction between higher prices and excessive prices and states that charging excessive prices is anti-competititve, and charging higher prices is not. To explain that authorized service providers are in a better position to provide the services for the MRI machines. He draws an analogy with the recent incident in Navi Mumbai where despite repeated tries by other people, the malfunctioning MRI machine could only be switched off by authorized service providers. He uses this to illustrate the technical nature of the industry.

At 9.57 am:

The second speaker has started his arguments. He begins by endeavouring to prove that the resolution to cap prices doesn't indicate cartalization. 

At 9.58 am:

The counsel submits that the resolution is applicable only to users of primary product. He further submits that a cost parity is not available for the cartal and so th essential legal standard of establishing a cartal is not met. Judge Verma asks him whether the resolution is similar to a resolution to boycott the independent service providers.

At 9.59 am:  

THe counsel answers that the hospitals themselves have made the decision and so it is not a boycott.

At 10.02 am:

It is submitted that certain qualifications are to be met by the authorized service provider and counterfeits for the spare parts are already available. Thus there is an inherent risk present which is considerably reduced with authorised service providers.

At 10.03 am:

The counsel submits that lesser cost doesn't corresspond to better quality. The authorised service providers' higher cost is for enhancing the functional life of the machines.

At 10:04 am:

The counsel submits that sharing the maximum price will act as a strong deterrent against price discrimination.He cites the EU guidelines and rests his case by establishing that the requirements for a cartal are not met.

At 10.08 am:

The rebuttal begins and the appellants distinguish their case from the Nissan case under Madras High Court by stating that the facts are disjunctive and thereis absence of a similar matrix.

At 10.10 am:

It is also pointed out that a dilution of the dominant position is irrelevant. The mere acceptance of a dominant position is enough. Moreover, counterveiling buying power doesn't show lack of abuse, which is clearly indicated by the high prices.

At 10.11 am:

The appellants don't have an issue with prices being exorbitant or resonable. The only requirement is to show that the prices have been negotiated.

At 10.12 am:

The respondents submit that the DG has exceeded jurisdiction. The exclusive supply arrangements resulted in divided loyalties and price fixing cartal encourages hospitals to provide better services and doesn't cause cartalization.

The respondents rest their case.

The results will be out soon. Stay tuned!

--------------------------------------

[22nd March 2015, Sunday]

The results are out:

Second Best Student Advocate- Siddharth Sharma, NLU-D

Best Student Advocate- Raveena Sethia, JGLS

Best Researcher- Kamal Sharma, NLU-O

Best Memorial- NUJS

Best Student Advocate(Finals)- Varsha Sriram, NLIU

Runners Up- RMLNLU, Lucknow

Winners- NLIU, Bhopal 

We congratulate all the winners and thank you for being with us! Hope to see you next year at the Seventh NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competion!