Nalsar's built up its strong Mooting Premier League lead this weekend at NUJS Kolkata when it won the NUJS Herbert Smith National Corporate Law Moot Court Competition held between 19 to 21 February.
Nalsar (pictured) also won the best memorial in the moot. This gives Nalsar 11 points in the league thereby giving them an enviable 31 point advantage over the second place NLS.
NLU Jodhpur, close on heels of NLS for the second spot was the runners up. This gives it 3 crucial points thereby reducing the margin from NLS. NLU Jodhpur trails NLS by only 14 points now.
{ppgallery}
{/ppgallery}Nikhil Chawla of ILS Law College, Pune bagged the best orator. This gives ILS 5 points. Although ILS stays in eighth place, the 5 points came in handy to pull further ahead of the previous joint eighth placed Law Centre-1, Delhi University.
The moot problem was based on cross border insolvency laws and was before the Calcutta High Court.
This was the second edition of the moot competition and Nalsar won the first edition also. This win of Nalsar comes in after two moot court wins over the last weekend and strong performance in the other two.
NUJS moot court convenor Amrita Biswas said: "We saw two senior partners from Herbert Smith coming down along with Professor James Edelman from Oxford. Having these people there who are experts in corporate law, we were able to ensure a good judging standards, which is one of teh most important things for any moot."
Next week, there are two more Tier 4 competitions; ULC Bangalore moot Competition and Surana and Surana International tech moot. Will NLS Bangalore be able to bounce back to make up in the losses of the past two weeks to Nalsar?
2009-10 Legally India Mooting Premier League table
Law school | Points | Wins | |
1. | Nalsar Hyderabad | 109 | IICLAM (best memorial); Henry Dunant Indian rounds (runners-up); Surana Trial Advocacy South (best team, best memorial); Nani Palkhiwala (best memorial), Bar Council of India (best team); KK Luthra (runners-up, best speaker); NLIU Tankha (runners-up, best memo); MM Singhvi (best memo); Jessups South (runner-up); DM Harish (best researcher); Surana Corporate (best team, best memorial); SP Sathe (best team, best orator); KLA Moot (runners up); NUJS Herbert Smith (best team, best memorial) |
2. | NLSIU Bangalore | 78 | Manfred Lachs (best team, best orator); Stetson South (best advocate), Bar Council of India (best orator); KK Luthra (best memorial); MM Singhvi (best researcher); Jessups South (best team, best orator); KLA Moot (best memorial) |
3. | NLU Jodhpur | 64 | Nalsar B.R.Sawney (runners-up); Stetson North (best team, best memorial); Jessups North (best team, best orator); Surana Corporate (runners up, best orator); SP Sathe (best memorial); KLA Moot (best team, best orator); NUJS Herbert Smith (runners-up) |
4. | NLIU Bhopal | 34 | All India Corporate Law Moot (runners-up, best orator); Nalsar B.R.Sawney (best team, best orator, best memorial); Stetson South (best memorial); MM Singhvi (runners-up) |
5. | School of Excellence Chennai | 29 | Henry Dunant Indian rounds (best team, best orator), NLIU Tankha (best orator); Nani Palkhiwala (best team) |
6. | Government Law College (GLC) Mumbai | 26 | KK Luthra (best team); MM Singhvi (best team); DM Harish (best orator, best memorial) |
7. | Amity Law School IP University Delhi | 25 | IICLAM (best team & best orator); Stetson North (runner-up), Jessups North (best memorial) |
8. | ILS Law College Pune | 19 | Bar Council of India (runners-up); DM Harish (runners-up); NUJS Herbert Smith (best speaker) |
8. | Law Centre I (LC-I) Delhi University | 14 | Henry Dunant Indian rounds (best memorial), Jessups North (runner-up) |
10. | Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL) Patiala | 13 | Henry Dunant national rounds (best researcher); NLIU Tankha (best team) |
11. | NUJS Kolkata | 11 | All India Corporate Law Moot (best team, best researcher) |
11. | Symbiosis, Pune | 11 | Nani Palkhiwala (runners up, best orator); GNLU International Moot Court (runners up) |
11. | University Institute of Laws PURC, Ludhiana | 11 | Surana trial advocacy north rounds (best team, best orator) |
14. | Kerala Law Academy Thiruvananthapuram | 10 | Stetson South (best team) |
14. | NLU Delhi | 10 | DM Harish (best team) |
14. | Nuals Kochi | 10 | Surana Trial Advocacy North (runners-up); Jessups South (best memorial) |
17. | UILS Punjab | 8 | Surana Trial advocacy South (runners up, best orator) |
18. | HNLU Raipur | 7 | Stetson North (best orator) |
18. | New Law College Bharati Vidyapeeth University Pune | 7 | Stetson South (runner-up) |
20. | CNLU Patna | 5 | GNLU International Moot (best memorial) |
20. | Government Law College Ernakulam | 5 | MM Singhvi (best orator) |
20. | Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad | 5 | Surana Trial Advocacy North (best memorial) |
20. | ULC Bangalore | 5 | All India Corporate Law Moot (best memorial) |
24. | Campus Law Centre Delhi | 3 | SP Sathe (runners up) |
24. | GNLU Gandhinagar | 3 | IICLAM (runners-up) |
Click here for an updated (February 2010) list of the scoring criteria we are using.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
sometimes i wonder how much one syllable can convey...need i say more! GO NALSAR!!!
U nedn't say more ... but how about some whoops and a wild war-dance expressing your joy ... then u can post the link containing the video here ... i'll buy drinks for my NALSAR frnz wen we watch that and share your joy :D
[No offense. Just my bad taste of humour]
ERNAKULAM GLC MOOT (organized by surana& surana i think)
1st anti-trust moot court competition .. reported by legallyindia itself
African Human Rights Moot Court Competition, organized by University of pretoria (recognized by ILSA - organizers of Jessup) (international moot competition!)
one international (!) and three national competitions (all with good participation) ..... i am interested ..... why are these not included kian sir?
in the last two weeks, there have been many comments regarding inclusion of various moots. Comment 4 states that we have not included 4 moots which NLS has won.
Regarding NLU Jodhpur competition law moot, we decided against the inclusion of it since this is the first edition ad wanted to analyse the moot first before including it in our table. This moot is under consideration for inclusion in season 2 of MPL.
Regarding GLC Ernakulam moot which again NLS had won, we had also considered that moot for inclusion in tier 4. However after consulting various people, we decided against the inclusion of the moot.
Some NLS students pointed out that NLS had won a moot in Pune. We are extremely sorry, but in MPL we have a specified number of moots only and at this moment we cannot include all moots.
Since everything in MPL has been transparent, let me again clarify the methodology used for inclusion of moots. We consider the following things in a moot before including it in MPL :
1) Reputation among the law students.
2) Participation of teams. (it is not necessary that wherever NLS will participate, we will include that moot. It might also happen that a moot which has no NLS particpation might be included.)
3) Quality of judging
4)moot problem.
5) Hospitality
Based on these criteria and after extensive consultation with Moot Court committee s of different colleges, we have prepared a table. We do not say that the table is 100% accurate, but it gives a fair reflection of the performance of every law college in that academic year.
We are currently evaluation and preparing the table for next season. All those who think that some moot should be in a higher tier, you are more than welcome to send us your opinion.
We would like to add that our list might not be entirely correct and that some deserving moot might have missed being in the borderline. But the 36 odd moots which we are covering can be said to be a good reflection of the mooting scenario in India and also can be said to be the top moots for this season.
There were few comments regarding scoring criteria for tier 1 competitions. We would give it a thought and try to see what can be done. however at the same time, we do not want a team who has won Jessups to win MPL by not performing well in other moots.
and what about the 'African Human Rights Moot Court Competition, organized by University of pretoria (recognized by ILSA - organizers of Jessup) (international moot competition!)' you forgot to explain its exclusion. i did not know about this ... indian teams are doing good. this is nlu's year for jessups!!!
the pune moot also fits in all the criteria that you have written above .. certainly if mliu tankha and sp sathe do then. 'we cant include all moots' is not a reason.
if would also like to inform you that glc ernakulum which we won last year is a very good moot. older that most of the other moots you consider. and it fits all criteria you wrote about.
1. you give criteria
2. moots we are talking about EASILY fit that criteria (especially since the teams that have participated in those moots are the same as the ones in moots you have considered)
3.. your response 'we cant include all moots' -
4. then what is the point of the criteria? hahaha ...
So based on these criteria, we had to decide on some moots and leave out few who narrowly missed the margin for this season. Also we allot the moots to different tiers based upon these criterias.Some moots have to be left out.
However the list of the moots was there from the start of the season and whenever we made any changes, proper reasoning was provided.
The 4 moots in question was never a part of MPL from the very start. We had considered these moots even before the rounds were conducted and NLS had won it. There is no question of biasness and everything was transparent from the very beginning.
It is just not possible to include all the moots conducted in the Country and abroad. We just hope that you understand that the list has been prepared in a transparent manner after extensive consultation.
At the end of the day it s just fun. Almost all the law colleges have contributed to MPL in some way or the other. We invite every reader to help us for preparing the table for next season. We also would request the MCCs of each college to give their opinion on changes required for next season.
Thank you everyone for your comments about MPL. This is our first season and we guarantee that each and every comment of every reader will be given due weightage. Also be sure about the transparency of a particular moot. If a moot has been not included, we will make a decision about it much before the rounds are conducted.
Best Wishes
Vinay Mishra
Jus cuz a moot is older than the other is no reason why it should be included!
The criteria as I understand it is
1) Reputation among the law students.
2) Participation of teams. (it is not necessary that wherever NLS will participate, we will include that moot. It might also happen that a moot which has no NLS particpation might be included.)
3) Quality of judging
4)moot problem.
5) Hospitality
Now whosoever debating there says that a given moot does fit in and wans to challenge the MPL system should come up with a detailed compilation with how on earth does their moot fit into this critera. Simply saying it does is like fooling around!! and trying to shy away from reality.
And obviously all the moots CANNOT be included. Only because the ones which were left out are the ones where NLS goes doesnt make them more special does it?
If NLS is not on the top..learn to accpet it instead of disputing the entire system.
n btw MPL is definitely the closest reflection of the mooting standards of law schools in the country.
@ Kian: Being a part of the moot court committee and a free lancer I know it takes a great deal to come up with an exhaustive research criteria and then analyse every aspect of it. I appreciate that u stand by your criteria. considering MPL's popularity and the fact that it breaks most popular myths in the indian law school circles (read: NLS is the best syndrome) it is surely bound to attract controversy! however i appreciate MPL for still maintaining its trasparency and fairness. hats of to u :-)
Thumbs up for ur effort !! keep it up!
NLS, Nalsar and NLU have regularly represented India at this moot. Nalsar were also runners up in the first edition of this moot in 2008.
no bias ... but once such moots are brought to your attention --- whats stopping you from including them if you are so interested in improving the standard of the rankings ... either provide a reason for not including these moots based on your criteria and the quality of the moot ... or include them! i dont see how the 3-4 moots brought to your attention are any different than the moots you have included ... in fact i know personally that 2 of them were of a high standard as regards both the teams (all national law schools, amity, glc, ils participated) and the judging ... i realize you cant add all the moots conducted in the world ... but if it is brought to your attention that moots of high standard have been conducted--- then why not add them??
u rock mann :-) long live MPL
1. World Human Rights moot- not included because it was the first edition and they just won one round against GNLU. There were five winners from 5 continents. Do they deserve any 'winner' points after beating only one team?
2. GLC Ernakulam- It is not possible to include every tiny little moot held in any corner of the country in this list. GLC Ernakulam is just not good enough to find its place in the list.
3. Krishna Menon Moot- Plain bad luck that this moot is not included. This moot deserves to be a tier 4 moot especially since a moot like the ULC Bangalore Moot is a part of this list. Either the tier 4 should also be made really exclusive, or it should be expanded to include other mediocre moots too. Including a few mediocre moots over the others in tier 4 can really hurt.
4. NLU Anti trust- Well they say it was the first year and hence they decided to see how it goes before including it for the next year. Irritating that it might seem especially when your college has won the moot, it is still a valid argument to not include a moot in its first edition.
shunt u have taken a stand earlier in order to raise ur "unbiased" opinion abt the inclusion of these moots as "only according to u" these moots "fit the criteria"..As MPL says that they have conducted wide consultations with MCCs of different law schools..then why cant u accept that perhaps others dun concure with your view of including them!
Dun u think its pompous on ur part to assume that certain moots should be included in MPL only n only cuz u abstractly and without ne logical argument or proof "feel" that "they fit the criteria" though all other law schools may not rate them as highly..
cmon have u forgotten its a democracy..u cant impose ur one sided views on the entire law fraternity!!
i supose u dun understand dat!
For this, it would be good if you all comment on your opinion regarding inclusion of a Tier 5. We can bring some of the moots from Tier 4 to Tier 5 and include some other moots also. However, this can be implemented in the next season only. Do let me know whether including more moots would be a good idea and not dilute the competition.
Also a table of this sorry cannot be 100% correct and there is always a margin of error. This is the first season and our experience with your comments will help us in having a fool proof table for the next season.
Do let me know your thoughts on the same.
--
Vinay Mishra
Vinay's explains things well above at #21 and #11.
At the end of the day, we had to draw the line somewhere, although a valid case can always be made for inclusion of 'just one more' moot.
We had a long period where we have invited submissions for further moots for inclusion and have continually cross checked with moot court convenors and committees about their views.
Unless a highly compelling argument was made for inclusion, in that there has been a gross oversight or miscategorisation, we are not able to add moots incrementally to the MPL ad infinitum, as we hope you understand.
For obvious reasons, at this stage we can also not add a new moot AFTER a moot has been held and the winner has been declared, as any such decision would inevitably favour one college over another.
I agree, the MPL criteria are not perfect and there are bound to be borderline cases that just make it or don't, one way or another (such as ULC Bangalore's moot, this season).
There are also very valid arguments for inclusion of a tier 5. A reason that we have not, has been a function of bandwidth as another commenter has mentioned previously, but we do hope to cover even more moots in the next season.
We also plan to have a longer and open consultation period with the top moot court commitees before next season to establish the final list of moots in light of everyone's experience this year.
If you do have any suggestions, please post below or contact us directly and we can have a chat and discuss individual cases, in light of the above.
Best regards,
Kian
ps: @3 - we are still following up on BR Sawhney best memo results, please bear with us. Sometimes it does take a long time to get through to the authoritative person, in light of their work commitments etc.
how does the argument by mr. vinay that the moot organized by nlu was not included because it was in its first year explain this? :-) interesting ...
and nls QUALIFIED for the international rounds in pretoria - they didnt just go there and win one round ... get your facts right before. and more than 50 teams were there in the qualifying round ...
alllso ... there may be borderline cases ... but i think people are making the point that these moots were clearly not the borderline cases ... but clearly made the criteria ... if you want true rankings ... why not consider these moots? still dont have a reason ...
This selection is based on talking to Moot Court Committees about which moots they considered to be the most prestigious and popular.
Somewhere they and we had to draw the line. In this case this number was 36 (35 originally) and we could not have realistically covered 70 moots in this first season.
Importantly several other moots could have been suggested and were accepted during the long and open consultation periods but please understand that it will be almost impossible for us to include any moot that already has a winner.
There is practically no way to include moots that have already taken place without being prejudicial to one school over another.
Following the principles of natural justice, the only way the MPL can be fair to everyone involved is if it does not act retroactively at such a late stage in the competition and the points are allocated according to pre-agreed criteria.
Furthermore, anonymous comments are well and good in polling opinion but very hard to use in making an objective decision.
If you want to make a serious case for inclusion of an upcoming competition please contact me directly - +91 900 405 6651 so we can evaluate your petition objectively.
Finally, there are still enough points and competitions coming up that should still give most of the top colleges a fair shot at winning this season.
Best regards,
Kian
Despite all its shortcomings and criticisms (some of which may be justified, and even if not justified is extremely well articulated), the MPL is indeed unique and unprecedented in the annals of Indian mooting history. It has brought awareness and focus about local, regional, national and international moot courts like nothing ever before.
The MPL has also generated tremendous interest and passion in the mooting scene. I can now foresee every law school/college worth its salt pay extra attention to its mooting activities from the coming academic year onwards. Almost every moot court committee will most likely schedule its calender around the "recognized" MPL moots. As a fall out - perhaps, the "unrecognized moots" are going to suffer in terms of lack of serious participation. All the more reason why the MPL should recognize the "deserving" moots. Easier said than done - but knowing Kian, I know he will not let any stone unturned in this regard.
It may be too early and even presumptuous right now, but the MPL should move towards a stage where organizers apply to MPL for recognition, and such recognition should symbolize a certain minimum standard for the competition. This way - if the competition is not recognized by MPL, then the blame could shift on the organizers, rather than on Kian and team. Early days for this, perhaps.
All said and done, kudos to Kian and the Legally India team for conceptualizing and implementing the MPL league. What perhaps started as "fun" is likely to transform the mooting scene in India, and more importantly, generate mooting interest among the tier 3,4 and 5 law schools and colleges in the country. Way to go - Kian and Vinay!!
please stop now ... all that's come out is mpl needs to have answers when people ask why moots are not included. for example, you have still not explained how one moot (which was conducted for the first time) was included whereas another moot was not included (for the reason that it was being conducted for the first time)
just be a little more careful ...
jindal is a next gen colg in making....................................................
its a very gud moot and also it has one of the leading law firms Lakhsmi Kumaran and Sridharan sponsoring it and in collaboration with Competition Commission of India and also has Lexis Nexis as Knowledge partner
both these moots aren't in the ranking but they dont seem to be wanting..
Also, NALSAR was adjudged the winning team, and won nothing else. Best Speaker went to LC-II, DU and there was no best memorial.
It is really up to you to figure out whether winning the big stuff is more important or just winning a lot of small things.
I understand why this would be such an emotional matter for some. It isn't for most though.
PS I am seriously starting to wonder if the people who post about Jindal are actually from Jindal. [...]
Precisely. The GLC and KLA teams comprised entirely of second years and - more importantly - first time mooters, who did a very commendable job. Watch them go onto greater things in the years to come. In fact, the two researchers of the Jessup team this year cut their teeth on national moots such as GLC and Henry Dunant.
all 3 members of the team that won herbert smith were second years.
the team that came runners up in henry dunant were also all second years
Then someone else - to lend solidarity to his Nalsar friend will add - "What about the rest at NLS? They are all mug-pots, sitting under the teacher's nose in the front row"
And the battle will rage on . . . Grow up, kids.
there world cup is ashes so that makes England the best team??????
But because we try to get final confirmation of results from convenors in each case (which includes categories such as best researcher, memorial or orator, which often no one seems to remember with 100% accuracy), it takes some time. Convenors are often hard to get hold of for some of the moots.
Plus, it was Holi yesterday!
However, the story on the ILS wins should be up later today. Thanks for your patience.
Best regards,
Kian
ulc keeps sending its dan to judge the moot and he ensures that no national law school team makes it anywhere past the semis. its SURPRISING that NO national law school team has EVER won the moot.
and he makes his contempt more than obvious for all national law schools by saying that national law schools have failed at mooting and are only producing corporate lawyers.
we accept that national law schools produce more corporates than people who join the bar but frankly mr.dean, you haven't done much for the same either, and as regards mooting, all national law schools have shown in the table above that they have a high mooting standard by having won all the non-rigged moots.
@55- well nalsar hasn't done so bad ya, right. chill. and of course with all due respect not denying NLS' great mooting record.
Your explanation is well accepted.
Thanks for updating the rankings
So much for the 'we only aim for Jessop's'!
Moreover, in any democratic institution, which I would presume NLS is, (Given the fact that they boast a very active student community), the selection of moots is based upon merit in the Intra-University competitions.
Thus, it would only be logical that the team which represented NLS was the one which was allocated KLA, keeping in mind their merit in the intras and in such a process if a 2nd year team is selected, then NLS-ites cannot crib that they lost due to lack of experience.
This of course, does not mean that NLS is in any way not elite, or that its a third rung law school. It only means that it couldn't win competitions (this year) and anyone who has mooted would tell you that there are many other factors (read: luck) which contribute to a win. Perhaps this was not their year. The same can be said about NUJS which is, without a doubt, an elite institution.
It might interest some that NLU students have been "allowed" to compete in only 25 moots this year. Thus, there are many moots, including many in the MPL, that NLU-ites simply cannot participate.
As someone said above: 'C'est la vie' (Such is life!)
Get used to it.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first