•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences
An estimated 34-minute read
 Email  Facebook  Tweet  Linked-in

MPL 4Welcome to the Live Blog on the 3rd NLIU Juris Corp National Corporate Law Moot Court Competition!

This is the third time NLIU is organizing this competition along with Juris Corp and in such a short span of time , the competition has created a niche for itself amongst corporate law moots. The Moot is also quite ‘rich’. With a total Prize Money of Rs. 1,10,000 the competition has sure been turning heads for a while now.

This edition has 36 teams participating from all over the country. The winner team shall take home Rs. 50,000/-, while  the First Runner-up shall earn Rs. 30,000/-. The other prizes include, Best memorial, Best Researcher and Best Speaker, each worth Rs. 10,000/-.

The Teams participating in the competition are –

  1. Amity Law School, Jaipur
  2. Amity Law School, Delhi
  3. Amity Law School, Lucknow
  4. Amity Law School, Noida
  5. Army Institute of Law, Mohali
  6. Baroda School of Legal Studies, Vadodara
  7. Bharati Vidyapeeth, New law College, Pune
  8. Campus Law Centre, New Delhi
  9. CNLU, Patna
  10. GLC, Chennai
  11. RMLNLU, Lucknow
  12. GH Raysoni Law School, Nagpur
  13. GLC, Mumbai
  14. GNLU, Gandhinagar
  15. HNLU, Raipur
  16. ILS , Pune
  17. Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad
  18. Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi
  19. MSR Law College, Bangalore
  20. NALSAR, Hyderabad
  21. NLU, Delhi
  22. NLU, Jodhpur
  23. NLU, Odisha
  24. RGNUL, Patiala
  25. RNPI School of Law and Justice, Anand
  26. Sardar Patel Subharti Institute of Law, Meerut
  27. School of Excellence in Law, Chennai
  28. Symbiosis Law School, Noida
  29. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  30. University Institute of Legal studies, Shimla
  31. University Law College, Bhubaneshwar
  32. University of Allahabad
  33. UPES, Dehradun
  34. Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies , Delhi
  35. WBNUJS, Kolkata
  36. School of Indian legal thought, MG University, Kottayam

The Competition shall have two preliminary rounds, an Octafinal and a Quarterfinal on the 27th, tomorrow. The Semi-final and the Final shall happen the day after, the 28th.

This Blog shall resume tomorrow when we go live and bring you the updates from the competition.

Do watch us!

You can also find us here.




27th October 2012


Good Morning! Welcome to day one of the 3rd NLIU Juris corp Moot. The First premiminary rounds have just begun and excitement is beginning to build already. Its going to be a long day as the team that clears its way through the Quarters shall Moot for four consecutive rounds. Phew. Bets on who makes it Gladiator style?

This round shall be judged on the combination of the Memorial and Speaker scores. There are 18 courtrooms in all. We shall bring you updates from what is happening where, so keep watching.

The Problem for the competition is centered around a company,Innovative Limited, filing two writ petitions in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. One Petition is against an order of the SEBI, while the other is against an order of the Competition Commission of India. The Company has been alleged to violate competition law by using one of its software applications to unduly promote the other. Also, it has been alleged that the software application that helps investors and stock brokers in getting access to predictions of stock exchange indices. The company is thus being alleged of running an unauthorized stock exchange and engaging in unfair competition. Whether the petitions are maintainable before the High Court is also an important issue.

Oh, and dear Mr. Stand up  from RML(space)NLU, due to paucity of time and well everything else in general, we are going to spell it as RMLNLU. Sorry Bro.


We bring to you NLU O vs. MG University, the latter being newbies versus a comparatively experienced team. NLU O Speaker one had a decent start while he faltered a bit when the judges started asking questions. While their Research seems to be strong, the delivery, um, not so strong. NLU O also seems to have problems convincing the judges on the maintaineability of the present suit.

In RMLNLU vs RGNUL, RMLNLU seems to be faltering a bit here, and he has problems answering questions . GNLU vs. SOEL , the speaker is unaware of the SEBI's jurisdiction and is pretty clueless about private issuing of shares. Not cool.

In HNLU vs ULC Bangalore, the first speaker has been given an extension of ten minutes and is still being grilled on the Jurisdiction. Grill and Grilled.

In Jamia Milia vs. Amity Noida, Jamia wrongly used the term judicature. Judges wanted the relevant paras of the Sahara Judgement. They are being asked whether the SEBI or CCI are subordinate courts. Jamia seems to be confused between what is a writ petition and an appeal. #saywhaa!

Jamia is not aware of the Sahara case. This is not pretty.


Amity Lucknow vs Symbiosis Noida, the second speaker is still explaining the facts and continues with the discussion for Amity. In NLU J vs. Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, NLU J is doing really well and the judges are really impressed. They tried to unsettle the team but the counsel won't budge. VIPS is under pressure.

RMLNLU speaker two did an average job again. In the GNLU Round, GNLU is stuck on undue influence of the competition act which is solely based on the interpretation of the facts and she is unable to cite any case law.

Symbiosis Noida has begun to speak, Judges did give Amity some extra trime and so Symbiosis shall get the same. The HNLU Speaker has been going on for a while

In NALSAR vs. Amity Delhi, the judges seem to be in a bad mood and NALSAR is wilting a bit. The Judges are speaking amongt themselves after the first speaker has spoken and they have now come up with a flurry of questions which has unsettled NALSAR.


In Baroda vs. CNLU, CNLU is representing SEBI and is doing well. RGNUL is unfazed in the storm of questions and is handling it really well.

NALSAR vs. Amity Delhi, NALSAR is on damage control mode but the judges wont let the speaker breathe. NALSAR's turn is over and the judges are engaged in discussion

CNLU said the High court of MP is in Bhopal. Tch. Tch.

Symbiosis Pune vs UILS, Symbiosis is stumbling in the flurry of questions.

In Nirma vs. UPES, people are laughing when Nirma picked a water bottle for the lady Judge. Chivalry set the mood here. UPES has begun and the Judge is slightly confused with the incessant elocution of the facts.


UILS is having a really bad time and the judges are on fire or what.  In Nalsar vs Amity Delhi, Amity is also not being so brave and fumbling for words. ULC Bangalore is speaking softly and the judges look slightly upset, and the other speaker also seems underprepared.

In the Nalsar round, Judges are not letting Amity speak and do not seem impressed at all. Its either lousy preparation or the judges are facing the lunar cycle.Which one?

in Nirma vs UPES , Nirma seems to be concerned over the fact that UPES held their team mates' hand and actually complained to the court clerk. They are finicky lest UPES gains an advantage by holding hands.

UPES was asked to stop talking by the court clerk.


In Baroda vs. CNLU, CNLU is explaining the SEBI act and trying to get their act together after the High Court fiasco. Amity Noida Speaker 2 loves hand gestures it seems and are trying hard to put their case against Jamia.

In RMLNLU vs RGNUL, RGNUL have been able to reply to most of the questions of the judges .

NLU J vs VIPS, judges seem to be going a bit easy on VIPS and not asking so many questions. This round is now over and the judges congratulated both teams on putting up a good performance. NLU J however seems to have an upper hand. We shall wait for round two to figure what happens next.

GNLU vs SOEL, SOEL is citing Supreme Court Judgments and citing violation of competition law.

RMLNLU vs. RGNUL ends with RGNUL seeming to have fared better.

Amity Delhi has lost their composure and is quite unsettled by the questions. SOEL is trying to get creative with the fact sheet, don't think anyone told them they are facts. Judges are not impressed and want to hear the law instead. SOEL is giving literal interpretations and judges are more and more, well , not impressed.

CNLU is nervous and has not been able to answer questions on the issues related to Stock exchanges and Markets.

Amity Noida is not being able to answer basic questions on what is a relevant market and the judges seem reluctant to even ask more question. Fizzled out the bubbly is.

The second speaker from Amity is however much better and the judges seem to be even helping him out with Section 4 of the SCRA Act. Except he is continuously calling the written submission a 'memorial'. Eh.


Symbiosis Pune vs UILS concludes and judges seem to be smiling now. Moods they say. Symbiosis seems to have fared better here.

The CNLU round is also over with CNLU trying to make a few rebuttals but as they were purely factual the judges didn't pay much heed.

Preliminary I is over and we shall be back with more news from Round II. See ya'all.



In MSR vs HNLU, MSR has started with the proceedings and briefing the judges on the facts. In Allahabad vs. AGLC Chennai, Allahabad has begun cautiously and with not such a solid start. They are unable to answer questions. But in about five minutes the speaker recovers and she is now speaking confidently.

MSR is explaining the term citizen but then they seemed to have found a marshy spot and are not balancing it really well.

In NUJS vs. NALSAR (Giants!!), the judges are asking NUJS to list the facts that go against them. This is going to be an interesting round as both teams are stalwarts from the Mooting arena.

In RNPI vs. GNLU, RNPI is confused and is being chided on principles of procedure. Classroom style. IN the Giants round, judges raise question over jurisdiction of SEBIO over the operations of the company as SEBI is based in Mumbai while the company is registered in M.P.

In BVP vs. NLU D, Judges are on the offensive and BVP has been trapped to the extent he is not saying anything right now. The web was spun well you'd say.


NUJS is claiming the fundamental right of being heard as they claimed they were penalized for 5.5 crores without a hearing. Sour.

Counsel for BVP is still stuck and cannot define what a stock broker is. In Campus law centre vs. Army Institute, the judges are not satisfied with the arguments of CLC and repeatedly asking them to clarify.

NUJS has had the first post with judges agreeing to stay the penalty for the company. In UPES vs. GLC , judges ask for a better argument from UPES and are hinting very heavily. Take the hint now UPES.

NUJS even after winning their right to be heard is till harping on natural justice thereby irritating the judge. Learn to keep your trophy in a case people.

UPES is smiling a lot and there is a lot of gesturing going on. Guess UPES is fond of their own private drama.

In Subharti vs Raisoni, Subharti is bland and did a CNLU after being unable to tell where the MP High court is. Subharti researcher was then called upon to clarify that they did know. Wrong speaker you'd say. Even their observer was allowed to speak by the judges.

CLC does not have the statutory definiton of 'stock exchange'  and is thus stuck. Judges are nice enough to point it out.


BVP just got told they lack court room manners when the speaker started off without permission from the bench. Such is the boon of colonialism.

UPES has bored the judges and they are not paying much attention.

NUJS has moved on to saying that they are not a stock exchange and are giving analogies to clarify they are just facilitators. Well done on moving on.

BVP is dodging questions on facts and is not sure of what he has to say. In a new turn to this round, the judges are now saying that the counsel from BVP has done gross injustice to their clients and should have been more prepared while NLU D sits , smirking like the cheshire cat.

BVP playing the safe kitten has now taken to elocuting by reading the facts. Judges well, are not happy.

In SOEL vs. Amity Jaipur. SOEL has not mentioned the application of the SEBI act to the instant case and this could prove to be a hole sized chink in their armour. SOEL is now being repeatedly asked to explain the SEBI's jurisdiction. Judge Ankur Khandelwal is on fire!

In MSR vs. HNLU, MSR's second speaker is more prepared and confident.

NUJS is no longer the judges pet it seems and the judge does not buy the analogy with facebook as it is an application for social entertainment.


After BVP being steam rolled, NLU D begins with their case steadily. And after SOEL its Amity Jaipur's turn to face Judge Khandelwal's wrath.

Giant NUJS is arguing the presence of an agreement under the competition act and trying to show the presence of two separate entities. Counsel has now made a blooper by citing a case whose facts defeats their own arguments. Rookie Mistake.

NLU D has been unsettled for a bit by the judges. After profuse sweating he is speaking in a constructed manner.

Allahabad vs. AGLC, AGLC are being confident in front of all the probing untill they were asked to list the functions of the CCI. This might just prove to be the first dent in their coat.

HNLU has started off and is focusing on the SEBI act for now.


GNLU has been doing well against RNPI. In Subharti vs. Raisoni, the latter seems to be faring better and with this the round got over. Both teams gave an average performance and were unable to anwer most of the questions . They also did not use the 30 minutes provided for rebuttals. We head towards conclusions now.

In CLC vs. Army Institute, AIL has got the judges listening to them. AIL is playing it smooth

NUJS is arguing that web sites and applications are different markets while the judges disagree and say they are very much related and consistent with the statute.

RNPI vs. GNLU, GNLU seems to have conceded on an important issue. Ouch.

NALSAR has begun saying they would not contest the jurisdiction of the court on territorial grounds.


NALSAR denies the claim of fundamental rights and argues for the SEBI's jurisdiction by citing a judgement thereby also solving the problem of an unlisted company.

The GNLU round ends with GNLU managing to answer most queries of the judges towards the end. Allahabad vs. AGLC is also over a slightly stale round.

ILS Pune has fared better against MG University newbies as they impress the judges with their knowledge of law. MSR vs. HNLU is also over.

Judge Navin Kumar is giving a tough time to MSR and HNLU. Nalsar is arguing that even facilitators NUJS can be held liable.


SOEL vs Amity Jaipur ends on a netral end with no one stealing the show particularly. Army Institute did not do so well with their second speaker as that round also ends. BVP vs. NLU D has ended with the latter showing better skills.

The Giants rest as both teams seem equally matched in what was a very exciting round.

We are almost done with the preliminaries, what with all the judges temper and teams' hand gestures and the whispers of swear words being occasionally used. We shall be back soon with the match ups for the Octa Finals



The Matches for the Octa Finals are -

UPES Dehradun vs. ILS Pune

SOEL Chennai vs. Symbiosis Pune

HNLU Raipur vs. RGNUL Patiala

NLU Jodhpur vs. RMLNLU Lucknow

University of Allahabad vs. NLU Delhi

NUJS Kolkata vs. G H Raysoni law School

GLC Mumbai vs. NLU Odisha

Army Institute of Law vs. CNLU Patna


In SOEL vs Symbiosis, SOEL has begun to speak and the speaker is arguing maintainability. The Judges are posing questions on natural justice problems. SOEL has been asked to quote only cases whose facts they thoroughly know. This seems to have unsettled SOEL a bit. The teams seem a bit tired and we can blame lunch for the judges' perfunctory attention.

SOEL used up all the first speaker's time in explaining natural justice.

In UPES vs. ILS, UPES has been asked to state facts that go against them. A CNLU moment happened where UPES said "bench at Jabalpur", not realizing the court is in Jabalpur. No one gives Jabalpur enough credit. Tch.

NUJS is very polite and calm. The Speaker is talking softly and the judges seem to be accepting most of his arguments.


In UPES vs. ILS, UPES was asked whether his client is a registered lnvestment advisor. When he could not answer he was asked to plead ignorance instead. Asked to plead ignorance they say. Such Attitude. UPES is veru confused about the nature of their company's transactions. Someone didn't do their home work eh?

SOEL is speaking without being questioned much. They are not sure of what is the nature of the transactions of the company they are representing. No home work here either. SOEL has concluded uneventfully after being asked about the dominant position of their company.

In GLC vs. NLU O , Judge Kundu is being very particular about the citation of cases which GLC is slightly clueless about. Both the judges in this match are speaking in riddles making GLC sweat it out to drive the point home.

UPES is confused about the difference between article 226 and 227 and has said Article 226 is of a supervisory nature.


The Speaker from GLC in GLC vs NLU O seems to have satisified the judges with the argument of not requiring a notice as the questioning ceases. GLC seems to be doing rather well.

UPES had to be explained the difference between 226 and 227 as the speaker was well, unable to.

In NLU Jodhpur vs. RMLNLU , the judges are very aggressive with NLU J barely hanging in there. HNLU vs, RGNUL, HNLU is facing serious fire, as Judge Khandekar and Judge Sarabjeet Singh are tearing into the memorial, quite literally and they've made the speaker concede on some important issues. When the first speaker was given extra time , even then the judges constantly bombarded him with questions. This one is very tough.


HNLU's turn is over as RGNUL comes to the fore and the judges don't spare him either. No "it may please this court..." happened and the speaker was asked to tell the judges how the parties are clubbed. He is pertrubed ,being the repondent and all.

NLU O has begun after GLC Mumbai's speaker 2 gave a good performance.

ILS Pune has begun and they are trying to cite a notification that was upheld in a famous case. Unfortunately neither the case nor the notification is in the compendium or the written submission.

In Army Institute vs. CLC, Judge Ashish Mukhi asks the petitioner to wrap us as he seems tired and actually frustrated with the jurisdiction argument. Lame might be the word of choice.

NUJS vs Raysoni is going to be a long round as NUJS has a lot to say and they've been give extra time also. RGNUL is trying to stand in the line of fire as the speaker is asked to move on to the next issue without really letting him argue the first.

NLU J vs RMLNLU, RMLNLU is getting hammered on jurisdiction.

In Allahabad vs NLU Delhi, Allahabad has ended its arguments without much fanfare. NLU O is very nervous as Judge Kundu asks simple questions on freedom of trade and he is speaking at a breakneck pace.


RGNUL has a new strategy it seems. Humour. Judges are however too clever and are smiling in a not so nice manner. In the extra time RGNUL get bombarded , with a smile of course.

NLU D surprisingly could not answer questions on clubbing of the petitions and were asked to start with maintanability instead.

Worse than a Rookie Mistake!! RMLNLU against NLU J have written in their submission they are before the Supreme Court. Too late in the competition to do that isn't it?


CNLU is facing fire over the competition commission's acts of violating natural justice and it seems they are not coping so well.

RGNUL seems to have found their feet as the second speaker ably answers all questions and is confident.

RMLNLU after the Memorial fiasco have lost wee , actually  a lot of , confidence and don't seem too sure of what they are saying. While that's that, ILS Pune is being quizzed on what is a tie in arrangement under the Competition law and there is a sort of debate going on between the judges and the team.

NLU D has regained their stand and are arguing the power of SEBI successfully and the judges seem satisfied.

In HNLU vs. RGNUL, RGNUL seems to have found a favourite sentence. "That is the next thing I am going to answer your Lordship." So sly.


NLU O is being questioned on "tie in arrangements" under their agreement. RGNUL after playing sly has been caught on the fact sheet as the judges ask the speaker why is he using the facts to his advantage. We don't know what the answer to that is.

ILS Pune was asked not to quote Oxford Dictionary. Obviously.

NLU D is doing very well after their arguments on Dominance and tie in arrangements. NLU D Cheshire smile is back.


The second speaker from RMLNLU is not helping their case much against NLU J. Speaker 2 from CNLU on the other hand is doing well against Army Institute and their boat is suddenly not sinking.

Time for Rebuttals is here. HNLU brings their cake in bullet forms and present it confidently. This brings an end to HNLU vs. RGNUL. NLU J 's rebuttal was also very convincing succintly laced with case law. NLU J vs. RMLNLU concludes with the former seeming to have an upperhand.

NLU D is arguing about invite only condition of using a software application.

Judges are tired as GLC gives it rebuttals and the match comes to an end.


CNLU is being asked about the Interest of investors and the speaker is slightly non plussed. Army Institute gave some weakling rebuttals and they ended really soon. This match has ended.

Allahabad vs. NLU D is over as NLU D ends it smoothly answering relevant questions on stock exchange, and the rebuttals are delivered.


Comparatively weaker performance of Raisoni law school and NUJS delivers rebuttals bringing the round to an end. SOEL vs. Symbiosis is also over without much fanfare and a comparatively slower round.

UPES delivers rebuttals and concludes their case.

We shall bring you results soon! Keep waiting.


Teams that qualify for the Quarter Finals

NLU Delhi vs. Symbiosis Pune

NUJS Kolkata vs. ILS Pune

NLU Odisha vs. RGNUL Patiala

CNLU Patna vs. NLU Jodhpur


NLU Delhi start and go on unintteruptedly while judges seem to be giving them time to speak. Judges ask the speaker to go slow and also breathe. Nice one this one.

NUJS has begun to argue against ILS. The speaker is animated and speaks using physical gesturing. NLU Odisha is arguing on the definition of securities and standing of the company and the speaker is being continuously interrupted by the judges.

CNLU has begun with its arguments.


Judges enter in to a conversation and then go on trying to confuse NLU D but the speaker keeps his cool.

CNLU is being asked about locus standi and maintainability. Pretty much the protocol by now you’d say. CNLU is asked whether they are challenging locus standi or maintenability

In the NUJS round Article 19 has been brought up and citizen ship and legal personality of a company are being questioned. Judges are claiming that the petitioners must invoke Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

CNLU speaker one is summarizing her arguments. NLU Orissa is arguing on the violation of fundamental rights but not so convincingly.


CNLU is not convincing the judges who are saying that allowing for natural justice and fundamental rights would create a floodgate situation. NLU D has hit a stumble for the first time when it was asked about the practice of competition laws in the USA and UK.

Judges claim SEBI’s penalty was in the right but grant writ of certiorari.


CNLU’s second speaker is being asked detailed questions on the Sahara case and CNLU has hit a rough patch where it is not being able to answer.

Rephrasing their arguments is not a good strategy, a lesson NLU O just learnt. Why are they even trying it is not known.

NLU J seems to be picking up on the craters in the CNLU Plan and are conferencing.


NUJS is being asked the difference between aiding and assisting and NUJS has some fine examples up its sleeve. Brownies to them.

NLU O claims their company is not investment advisor but an investment facilitator and the judges seek an explanation.

NLU D’s second speaker is now arguing on competition law and CNLU is arguing the same in their court room. The Judges in both matches are interested and keep discussing amongst themselves.


NLU O is doing quite well with the second speaker prepped up and the judge leaves to attend a call. CNLU paused for silence after a question and asked the judges to repeat a question. We hope it wasn’t their favourite question, namely, where is the High Court of Madhya Pradesh located.

NUJS speaks of technical issues quiet fluently, difference between applications and websites being discussed. NUJS puts forward a naive foot claiming they do not intend to harm competitors.

Judges are concerned about customers in the CNLU round and CNLU is answering absurdly. ( CNLU is a slightly greedy company.)

CNLU caught on a slippery patch when the speaker says she has her company’s interests at heart. The Judges on the scent quickly stop her and she is now in a dilemma. Consumers or Company. Social Reputation of a nice company or Profits. Harsh World.


NLU J begins with confidence. The speaker has poise and she is answering jurisdictional issues. Symbiosis has also begun against NLU D.

NLU J is answering the questions really well and the speaker is able to dodge the Sahara case bullet.


ILS has also started with maintainability and she apologises for citing so many sections. The Judges smile. Nothing like too much law.

Symbiosis is really doing well and the judges seem really pleased.The flood gate resort is being again taken by the judges but this time against RGNUL.

ILS is speaking for the investors’ benefits. NLU J is being asked why the penalty by SEBI was passed in an ex-parte order.


NLU J has not been able to clarify the issue of listed and unlisted securities in the stock market. She is giving it multiple attempts by citing case laws.

ILS Speaker 2 takes ground and application’s information and its credibility is being discussed. Judges are asking Symbiosis are a lot of questions and seems they are more than eager to answer.

NLU J speaker 2 begins and the rest of the team is asked to hush up as they are discussing a wee bit too much.


What was feared, has happened. Researcher from NUJS is fast asleep. During that ILS Pune is busy calculating the average turnover of the company for the past 3 years.

Judges are telling NLU J that the company has been acting in the interests of the customers by offering more variety on the applications they use.  While NLU J is arguing for the sake of the other competitors in the market the judges are not buying it.

ILS is now speaking of tie in arrangements and he is systematic. The Judges seem convinced. Or they want to end it. Either ways.


CNLU makes a short and crisp rebuttal and the round between CNLU and NLU J ends.

RGNUL is not doing so well and the judges are slightly annoyed. Well there can only be so much awesomeness in one room and looks like NLU O took it all.

ILS is holding its ground well on being questioned on predatory pricing. The Judges give interesting analogies of Vim and Toothpaste and the speaker answers well by referring to the fact sheet.


ILS vs. NUJS is over with the rebuttals going unquestioned. NLU D vs. Symbiosis and NLU O vs. RGNUL Patiala is also over.

We'll be back with results. After Dinner.




NLU Delhi vs. RGNUL Patiala

NLU Jodhpur vs. ILS Pune

Also, more on the dynamic seeding used in the competition tomorrow.

Find us here tomorrow. Sleep well.

28th October 2012


Semi Final

The rounds have begun. NLU D has started confidently. He is arguing on violation of fundamental rights and natural justice. The judges did stop him for a bit to discuss alternative remedies but he moved on from there unfazed.

NLU D is arguing that the market for applications on stock market news is too new and immature to be considered relevant and hence it would be too early to decide dominant positions. Judges counter by saying that the mode may be different but the activity is the same and it is not new. He is quoting American case law to persuade the judges.

NLU J has started with their arguments and the judges are asking them if the client would be willling to deposit trust and if they've permitted the counsel to do so. Judges are not so serious it seems. Thye've asked the speaker to move on to the third issue straightaway and are asking about off market transactions.


NLU J is answering queries on the SCRA Act. So far smooth sailing for them.

NLU D inspite of being a confident team has been accused by the judge of presuming too much. What else do you do in mooting?

NLU J is being asked to explain difference between controlling, assisting and regulating as the case cited by the speaker involved controlling and regulating. The Judges are thorough and very alert.

NLU D is being asked to explain the difference between tie in and bundeling arrangements.

The judges were not convinced of the difference between assisting and regulating. In a new angle NLU J is being asked if the company would be willing to approach the RBI. This is interesting.


The judge himself answered the difference between regulating and controlling and now asked the speaker from NLU J to explain jurisdiction of SEBI.

Speaker 2 from NLU D arrives. He is very soft spoken and well mannered.

NLU J's speaker has an effective strategy. She is very well versed with case law and now she is citing multiple cases to support every argument. Good work here by NLU J.


As NLU J's speaker one's time is almost over the judges explain to her the jurisdiction of the SEBI and the relation with the SCRA act. They have asked her to not confuse procedure with substantive law.

NLU D speaker 2's mild manners seems not to have budged the judges too much as they are asking him to elaborate his issues of why the company's application cannot be qualified to be a stock exchange. He is giving analogies and trying to convince them. But they don't seem much impressed.

NLU J's speaker two has arrived and she is now answering questions on penalties.


NLU J is confused between what is the difference in this case between selling a product and selling services. Amidst all the confusion she starts reading section 3 when asked to read section 4 of the competition act. Seems the judges won't give her a breather anytime soon. Dominant position seems to be the rough patch NLU J has hit as they can't convince the judges on the same. She is now nervous. Dominant no more.

NLU D was unaware of the new regulations in effect and this surprised the judges for a bit. He was asked to give 5 differences between a stock exchange and the application his company is running.


NLU D's turn is over and RGNUL shall begin soon.

RGNUL wanted to argue jurisdiction but the judges cut him short and instead questioned him on the penalty that was imposed on the petitioner company. He scuffles a bit here.


Judges won't let NLU J speak much as they are explaining to them why there is a violation of competition law. NLU Jwants to show otherwise by citing the company's resolutions but its not doing much good to them. Speaker has been asked to explain the second resolution of the company and the investigation done under it.


NLU J is being now asked to explain tie up arrangements. RGNUL is being asked if a penalty can be imposed under an interim order. RGNUL answers confidently and explains due process quite properly. Judge seems satisfied and asked him to move to the order by the competition commission.


Speaker one from ILS arrives and is very nervous. After the  initial stuttering the speaker seems to have kept his court manners aside and is questioning the judges. The judges seem pretty offended too. We'd say.


ILS is now being chided on the ex parte order by SEBI. Seems the judges took a little too much offense. Speaker asks for a pause to refer to the act of the SEBI.

RGNUL is explaining the nuances of stock exchanges and the judges have disregarded their argument of jurisdiction claiming the ministry of corporate affairs was the right forum. Meddling much?

ILS has brought the Sahara case to its defence and the judges are going through the compendium.


ILS is unconvincing as the speaker cannot cite the SEBI act to his advantage. And hie ends up asking the judges what is the jurisdiction under the act. The judges laugh. Cold laughter. ILS is reminded of its job. Of explaining.

ILS goes on to link section 11 and 23 of the SCRA act. The judge questions ILS on application of factually different cases.

RGNUL just got told they have no authority for their definition of 'purchase'.


ILS Speaker was told to speak formally. Manners (wink).

ILS fails to define forward contract and yet says the present contract is not a forward contract. How?

RGNUL has been told there was no predatory pricing in the instant case. It seems the Judges are accepting nothing on face value.


Rebuttals for NLU D shall begin soon as RGNUL has wrapped its arguments without much fizz.'

ILS is being asked about off market transactions and the judges seem to be convinced by nothing ILS has to offer. Speaker tries to explain 'pink sheets". New word in the competition!!


ILS has moved on to arguendos and is arguing about the PSS Act.

NLU D delivers a good round of rebuttals and moves on smoothly. RGNUL also. Same. This match ends.


ILS Pune's second speaker is now on the fore and arguing jurisdiction of the appellate tribunal. The speaker is confidently answering questions on reports under the Competition Act.

ILS further argues that reliance on the facts that do not offer an explanation violates rule of law. Rule of law is a favourite. Everywhere. The judges insist that the competition act was violated and will not budge.


The judges are arguing on the definition of "agreement" and asking ILS to cite case law. The judge claims an understanding prima faciedly does not guarantee an agreement.


ILS has hit a minor stumble as it has no authority to cite whether concentration for one can mean concentration for another.

So the judges are stubborn and the speaker is stubborn. And the round wouldn't end. And everyone wants lunch.


ILS couldn't cite an American case's facts he had cited. Most interesting thing now. Trust us.

The Round ends with nothing remarkable happening in the Rebuttals.

We shall bring you results soon. Lunch now.



ILS Pune vs. RGNUL, Patiala

We start soon.


We begin. ILS Pune is on the Podium. Prof. Alam is briefing the Chief Guest.

Judges start questioning the speaker whether he has approached the court under Article 226 only or 226 along with Article 227. Speaker tries to explain of writ of certiorari. He is also arguing on natural justice. Judge asks him why the statutory tribunal wasn't approached and asks him to cite authorities directly in context of SEBI. The speaker tries to invoke Sec. 15(i) of the SEBI act but Prof Kondaiah asks him to read Section 11 instead.


SEBI's jurisdiction is now being discussed and the Speaker is discussing the case of SEB vs. Alka Synthetics. Judges ask him to tell the bench whether the stick exchange was recognized or not.

Speaker speaks of the non applicability of the Sahara judgement but has only one copy of the compendium so the judges are peeking at each other.

Prof Alam asks the speaker whether the Sahra judgement was a fact specific judgement or was a general principle. Also, Prof Kondaiah is asking unlisted companies under SEBI is a good law or not. Lessons in Jurisprudence.


ILS argues penalty in excess of one crore is wrong so judge asks him about penalties in continuum. The speaker's time is almost over as he gives analogies of shaadi.com and it is not accepted by the bench as the company is registered thereby falling under the companies' act.


Second speaker Manaswi Agarwal has taken over and he is now beginning to argue. Mr. Mahapatra asks him the reasons for filing a petition in the MP High Court. Prof Alam isn't happy about copies of judgements from Manupatra. We know.


Manaswi argues he is at the MP High court due to the wider powers of the High court. The Judges interrupt and say that he is arguing that Natural justice is a static principle if that were the case.

Prof Kondaiah tells the speaker SEBI and CCI are both regulatory authorities and can issue public notice. Manaswi denies double jeopardy as penalties imposed are regarding different issues.


ILS is trying to explain relevant markets.


Manaswi while equating the application to facebook and twitter says people also visit these portals to discuss stocks. Judge says."who discusses stock market on facebook?". Generation Gap much?

And yeah, a judge is slightly snoozing.


Manaswi is trying to bring it to show how stockhoj, the application, does not have a dominant position but the judges want to hear the economics first.

Discussion is going on about unilateral actions and definition of agreements. Judges asks of alternate forums if the decision was not given in the petitioners' favour.


RGNUL has started with its arguments. Speaker Arnab Ghosh is telling why there has not been a violation of fundamental rights.  Prof. Alam is asking about the differences between Judicial and quasi judicial proceedings. Arnab answered it and scored a brownie.

He is being asked a lot of questions about Naturak justice, Section 15(i) and penalties and not being allowed to argue much.

Prof. Alam wants to adjourn when Arnab said he would submit the copies of the AK Gopalan case after proceedings. Even the Patiala camp laughed.


Things seem to be funnier. Prof Alam wants to see the vakalatnama and the other judge asks if he is at all a designated advocate. So is that a good thing?

Judge asks Arnab whether a delay in interim order makes it a final order. Weird questions.


Arnab seems to have found his feet and is explaining how the CCI has the authority to do what it did and that due process was followed absolutely. But he fails to answer where in the constitution resides the principle of natural justice.

Interesting question. Judge asks Arnab which point would he concede to if he had to. Arnab says none. Smart boy.


RGNUL is being asked the validity of the DG's report and Arnab argues it through criminal jurisprudence. He also lays down the duty of CCI. The Second speaker Vishesh has come to the fore.

Presence of an agreement is being debate wherein Vishesh says that the presence of an understanding can qualify to be an agreement.


Shantanu Tiwari reporting live says he is slightly bored. We don't know what that says for the proceedings.

Judges are questioning Vishesh how the application stockhoj benefits people and how do the two applications stockhoj and khojduniya share a common market.


After two incorrect reasonings Judges managed to extract an answer as to why there is a dominant position in the instant case. The apt word here - Walnut.

Vishesh is speaking of dominat position being used as a leverage.


Rebuttals have begun. ILS argues that penalty was in the nature of a final order and while the enquiry was pending the order should not have been given.

Judge is asking for cases in the rebuttals and says agreement can be in between entities only.

RGNUL justifies penalty pending investigation and says there was a show cause notice given. Rebuttals end. Rounds End. (Big Smile).

Results soon.



Winner - ILS Pune

Runner- Up - RGNUL Patiala

Best Speaker - Shailesh Singh,  NALSAR

Best Researcher - Neetu Ahlawat , Symbiosis Pune

Best Memorial - NLU Orissa

We Congratulate all the winners. We hope you've had fun following us here. The Media Team has had a great time bringing to you the updates.
Here's Good Bye.
Click to show 17 comments
at your own risk
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.