•  •  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 21-minute read
 Email  Facebook  Tweet  Linked-in

We welcome you to the 2nd edition of the NLIU Justice Tankha stay tuned with us for live updates for the next 2 days as teams take on each other for the ultimate glory. 

Prelim Round I

Court Room 1

Judges- Ms. Divya Salim and Mr.  Sanyat Lodha.


Participants- RN Patel Ipcowala School of Law v NLIU Swing Team

Ist Speaker


 (Gokul Holani, NLIU Swing)

Gokul had to plead ignorance regarding para 8 and 9 of the moot problem. He also pointed out that Arbitrator has no jurisdiction because the Acts applicable are of a criminal nature.
He has now concluded with his arguments.

Court Room 3

Judges-Kapil Duggal and Prakash Upadhyay

Participants- NLU Kochi v MNLU


Claimant 1 has submitted her arguments

The arguments seemed to be conclusive, there weren't many questions from the judges, though the speaker couldn't complete her agruments within the stipulated time and got an extra time of 1 min.

Court Room 9

Judges-Ashish Virmani and Monica Raje.


Paticipants- ALL. UNI. VS. SLS HYD.


Speaker 1
Team: Allahabad University
The judges asked the speaker to present brief facts before starting with the issues. Judges asked her not to consult her partner before speaking on any issue. The claim, according to her, was in accordance with the first agreement. Theory of Implied Consent has been referred to. The judges are concerned about the authority of the author whose work is being relied upon by the speaker. The argument doesn't seem to be very convincing. The speaker was questioned a lot many times by the judges. She claims that the direct interest of the Batla is facing a direct harm because of the business being affected. Her argument about the arbitration laws in Batla were rejected on grounds of irrelevance. She exceeded her time limit.

She seems to be wanting to speak a lot.

Speaker 2
All. Uni.
The team seems to be confused. He said that the contract is illegal!!
The councils contradicted each other. We can see some trembling hands and shaking voices, now that the judges are pointing out the many contradictions. 2 trimesters of learning contracts law, yet I can't really understand their contentions.
According to him the product is patented but there is still need for goodwill!! (Very well pointed out by the judge)
Times up!!


Court Room 13

Judges- Sai Deepak and Chetan Kanurgo


Participants- Christ, Bangalore v. GNLU

Speaker 1 was asked about the beneficiary in law of contracts in USA....
Gotcha know all about America !!
J. Deepak Sai grilled the first speaker (claimants) on separation of powers in USA and the doctorine of estoppel relied upon by them. 'Let the gumballs come his way, he is a ninja warrior'! (Time no bar, the placard holds no value, eh?)
We get to know ,software is still with Naksha ,can you extend the benefit of doubt to someone whose name is NAKSHA ?

The first issue brought forth is liability of the coolest tech lawyer in town , Mr NAKSHA !! The counsel is trying to prove Batla and NAKSHA, the negligent narcissist liable, but for what ?The counsel seems to be dubious ... And then the arbitrators fire the Bangalore batallion with questions of fact !!
Why is the counsel holding dear Mr Batla retrospectively liable ?? The Nation wants to know.
Well, the arbitrators seem to be more well versed with the facts of the case than the counsels themselves....And yet again
time no bar
The counsel is a soldier
And this is WAR !

 Court Room 2

Judges- Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya NLU, Lucknow vs SOEL, Chennai



Speaker 1 :
The claimants in courtroom 2 started their arguments straight away.

Sought damages under general common law. The base is infringement of IPR.

The speaker presented arguments but the judges posed constant questions and objections especially as to why the case has been brought to the Tribunal, which couldn't be replied satisfactorily by the speaker. The judges enquired  whether the counsel were prejudiced by the time limit within which tribunal has to decide over the case.

Consequently many of the arguments could not reach proper conclusions.  The speaker crossed the time limit which was noted by judges.

Speaker 2

Begins with the burden of presenting the arguments within time limit which is apparent in her tone. She seems to be slightly baffled by constant objections by the judges.

Justice Agrawal points out (again) why state is being made a party along with a private party. The speaker fails to satisfy the
Tribunal, arguments not conclusive. The speaker crosses time limit, as noted by the judges.


Court Room 4

Judges-Shivani Garg, Akbar Ahmed

Paricipants- NLUJ vs GLC mumbai

Speaker 1- Claimants- Speaker 1 began with a 30 sec briefing  of the facts, after which the judges asked him a number of questions. The judges were not satisfied with a particular issue put forth by S1, and awarded him 30 seconds to satisfy them with the same, after which He submitted his final arguments. S1 seemed confident and answered all the questions patiently.

Speaker 2 began with his speech. He was supposed to speak for 10 minutes. The judges do not seem to be satisfied with his arguments. While S2 was explaining a particular argument to the judges, S1 interrupted madam arbitrator, which she did not like, and asked him not to do so.
S2 seemed nervous. The time was up, and S2 took a few more seconds  to wrap up his arguments, however, the judges kept on asking him questions.


Court Room 14


Participants- NALSAR. Respondents - Nepal Law University.


Claimants -   
First speaker, claimants - first argument - "jurisdiction lies with the tribunal" according to art 2 (1) of the Net York convention (arbitration clause) - based on a defined legal relationship, giving rise to a dispute that can be dealt with in an arbitration session. Hence, the matter can be settled through arbitration.
Second argument - also to establish jurisdiction, says that the stay of 20 days is unreasonable because arbitration clause was invoked within the limitation time period. According to law of the host state, ie the state of Batra (?) the supreme court cannot supercede applicable arbitration laws or rulings of the arbitration tribunal.

Claimants speaker two -

Argument 1- use of software for personal use, hence they are entitled to damages. According to the terms of contract the software was not meant for personal use, hence the personal use entitles the claimants to damages. They contend that even though the terms were in mandarin the relevant lines were written in English. Judge asks the software was meant for just use, nowhere was 'personal use' mentioned. Placing a thing in the consignment which was not supposed to be in it is a lapse on the part of the claimants. Answer by speaker two, claimants- The negligence on part of the respondents when they used the software on a computer with no appropriate antivirus entitles them to compensation.
Argument two - demonetisation amounts to indirect expropriation. The action of the govt has neutralised the benefits they seek. They contend that the enjoyment of their property has been neutralised and hence it leads to expropriation. No further explanations provided.


Court Room 5

Judges- Vipin Upadhyaya and Akshay Sapre

Participants- NLU-O v Saifia College of Law 




The first speaker from NLU-O started with explaining the present scenario of the problem being heard in the honourable court and presenting her arguments.
Heated a bit with the cross questions going on concluded with an extra time of a min.

The speaker 2 of NLU-O
Rests his arguments.
Grilled him hard and the speaker couldn't substantiate his case properly.
(Frooties and chips - There you go! Such hospitality!
Surely brought a smile on the faces of the judges.)
The memos being a bit of a concern for this team.
Our judge Mr.Vipin Upadhyaya left no chance of grilling our speaker making the round interesting.
Arguments, T&Cs, software agreements and the being the main concern of this round.

The first speaker from the claimant's side
Totally rejecting the "Rosy - Side" presented by the respondents went ahead with his arguments.
Speaking with regard to Tripartite agreement and being in disagreement with the number of agreements being talked about by the claimants.
Oops! He just corrected our judge " Not the moot problem Sir, the memorial!".
Our respondents wanted an injunction against themselves in the High Court of Batla! Seriously!
The first speaker couldn't present all his issues and the cross questions being put forth were not answered satisfactorily.
The jurisdiction issue was held tightly and the judges were not ready to give it up.
A Bumpy ride indeed!
Times up but our judges are not out of questions.
Stammered a bit, he rested his arguments.
Grilled again!

Court Room 15

Judges-Vaibhav Ganjiwale, Dhruv Verma


Participants- ILS, Pune v. USLLS (GGSIPU)


Speaker 1

Speaker 1 briefed the judges on the facts but kept using pronouns vaguely following which she was questioned by the judges regarding the same. The judges requested her to proceed to the first issue to address the jurisdiction

Speaker 2

The second speaker addressed the issue of jurisdiction followed by further confusion regarding the parties. The judges thoroughly questioned the speaker on how the contracts were not independent and how the arbitration clause was binding in nature. The speaker kept on emphasising on the point that there was no alternative remedy available to the other party whereas the judges explained how alternative remedies may be available even if there was a sole mechanism for dispute resolution.


Court Room 6

Judges- Mr. Victor Das and Ms. Avani Vermab2ap3_thumbnail_6a6f5968-748b-4533-8a2e-d2f1b109f858-CR6.jpg


Participants- TNNLS v ILNU


The claimant's first speaker addressed issue number 1 while speaker 2 addressed issue number 2,3,4. The judges asked the speaker 1 to address issue number-2,3,4 first. Both the arbitrators especially Mr. Victor were having deep discussion over issue number 1 with Speaker 1 ( Claimant)
Speaker 1 exceeded his time and the judges noted that.
Team 6 ,ie TNNLS, have wrapped up their arguments
Well the judges didn't allow the Team 6 to end it with the prayer.
The court is adjourned for 5 minutes 

Prelim 2

Court Room 1

Judges- Mr. Kapil Duggal and Mr. Shivendra Pandey.



Participants-Amity Law School, IP University vs. RN Patel Ipcowala School of law.


Court Room 5 - Court room 5  : 

Judges- Akbar Ahmed and  Neha Sharma


Participants- GNLU  v NLSIU





Court Room 13

Judges- Ashish Virmani and Nirman Sharma


 Participants- NlLIU(swing) v. RMLNLUb2ap3_thumbnail_c4a87a42-233f-4466-b129-8de60f9c07b2-NLIU-s.jpg


Speaker 1 Claimants-
Counsel Gokul is startled and shocked , his boat hadn't left the shore and it was rocked !! Asked to explain the premise of the case before anything else , the arbitrators find it hard to comprehend counsel's "these and those" .Counsel requested to move more systematically and decide finally what the issues to be argued are. The arbitrators guide the shaky boat of the Bhoptown sailors .... Woah! Time's up before the issues could begin. Arbitrator Nirman Sharma is carrying the ship on his shoulders now.

Speaker 2 Claimants
The Ld. Arbitrator Nirman Sharma is grilling the counsels hard in his attempt to simplify and structure the arguments advanced by the claimants.
A big revelation made by the counsel, BIT not read before arguing the case! Such a hardship being made to read aloud their own memo by arbitrator Ashish Virmani.
The counsel gets an essential piece of wisdom , ifs and buts don't work in court !! Counsel unsure of where they've filed the suit ? Pleads a do or die situation. Pompous shots fire back counsel :(

Speaker 1 Respondent

The counsel starts very confidently and appears to be well versed with the facts of the case.
The arbitrators seem to less concerned with the law and are just interested in grilling the counsels regarding facts and legal verbose.
The counsel sticks to her stand , she's a tough nut ! The confusion between Indian and English law has gripped all and arbitration is in dolldrums. The proceedings are not less than a throwback to common law classes with civil and common law being mixed in between?!
Time already up a long while back but the roasting isn't still up..
In the hot Bhopal weather, the counsel refuses to melt.

Speaker 2 respondents
The arbitrators are amused when the counsel ignores their question and goes according to her notes , Counsel needs to be a carful listener ! Counsel requests more time ,time doesn't seem to be stopping for this one :)


Court Room 3


Participants- UILS Chandigarh vs NLU Jodhpur



 The 1st speaker has submitted his arguments, there seemed to be a lot of grilling on the maintainabilty of the arbitration, and the 1st speaker karanbir had a hard time arguing this issue, the round became more interesting as there was alot of confusion between what the speaker was arguing and the relief being asked. The speaker got extra speaking time of almost 3-4 mins, but was finally able to submit his entire arguments

The 2nd speaker, council Aradhika is like a hungry lion, tied to a tree and runs as fast it can once released, she is speaking so fast, that it is difficult to comprehend her, she makes me feel as if its a debate session and not moot court, she dosen't want to listen to the judges and keeps on speaking, even the judges are having a tough time to question are and is countering the judges a lot, her arguments are good but she has a tough time to argue the jurisdiction clause which seems to popup now and then, the council is getting a lot of extra time ,*its a lucky day for UILS in terms of speaking time*.
Aradhika has recited her prayer and judges are grilling her that she has seeked the same prayer for both HC and SC and there seems to be a jurisdictional issue, she definately needs to stop cutting the judges.

Court Room 9 

Judges- Ruchy Modi and Sanyat Lodha

Participants- NUJS v ILS, Pune



(Speaker 1, Claimant)

The judges questioned the speaker about the jurisdiction. Weak contention on part of the claimants. Not very articulate in their speeches.

Speaker 2, Claimant

The second speaker wasn't grilled much. He was composed probably due to the absence of many questions. Nothing much can be said about the extent of the satisfaction of the judges.b2ap3_thumbnail_ae3d5f6e-fc77-4496-b64e-a83e5807d7c1-cr9_20170218-100852_1.jpg

Speaker 1

The speaker seemed to be very confident. She did not fumble for once and presented her argument in a very structured manner. She answered all the questions well and did not concede even once. There were times when the counsel and the judge had a clash of ideas but the same was very well overcome by the speaker.

Speaker 2


The second speaker was yet again, a confident one. The speaker tried to present a counter claim, to which the judge replied that the same would mean that they submitted to the jurisdiction. Time up!! Nothing much to talk about. The issue was very well contended by the respondents.


Court Room 14

Judges- Rishabh Sancheti , Siddharth Singhb2ap3_thumbnail_8d460aff-e3f0-4f28-ae5d-c04dafe41179-CR14.jpg


Participants- Nepal Law University v  TNNLU

Speaker one , Nepal law university tries to establish jurisdiction, incomprehensible again. The speaker is arguing the consignment agreement instead of the arbitration agreement, judge not pleased.Mr. Sancheti insists that claimant speaker 1 argue the arbitration agreement instead of the investment agreement itself. He refuses to listen and continues to argue the investment contract. Totally cornered. Lot of time spent trying to decide validity andb2ap3_thumbnail_5dab7399-927d-483e-854e-61e1999f09b7-cr-14.jpg jurisdiction, counsel clueless⁠⁠⁠⁠.Speaker one trying his best to make sense. 

Speaker one , claimant claims that it was a LINUX system that was fake and that's how it got virus. Judge asks 'do you buy Linux or is it free?'
Speaker has no answer. Judge says Linux is a free software and hence it cannot be pirated.
Speaker claims mala fide intention, judge says they haven't claimed the same in their memo.

Mr. Sancheti asks "your net worth in a year is 15 bn USD, whereas your investment agreement is for 25bn USD. Where do you get the money? Speaker has been silent for over 40 secs now.

Speaker number two, claimant

Mr. Sancheti asks the second speaker - if your net worth is this much lesser than your investment money, your working capital is basically just debt. If it's bank's property, how can you call it expropriation?Speaker two - software was used not carefully. Mr. Sancheti - what is not carefully? What is careful? Counsel - not having antivirus on your computer. Mr. Sancheti - are there viruses which affect Linux? Counsel quiet again. Judge continuously asking if there are viruses that affect Linux.Speaker 2 accidentally said 'trot' , judge asked what a 'trot' is. She said 'civil crime '

Respondent speaker 1


Judge asks the validity of a challenge in a foreign tribunal to supercede the supreme court order of one's own country,Speaker one admits that the tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the jurisdiction, but not to decide the case.                      



 Claimants - Nepal Law university 

Respondent - TNNLU 

Respondent speaker 1.


Court room 14. 

Speaker two, respondent.

Claimants - Nepal Law university
Respondent - TNNLU


Court Room 6

Judges - Victor Das and Yash Bandi

Participants - Praveen Gandhi College of Law, Mumbai v. SLS, Hyderabad


Judges Victor Das and Yash Bandi


Speaker 1 Claimant (Praveen Gandhi College of law, Mumbai)


Speaker 2 Claimant (Praveen Gandhi College of law, Mumbai)

Well the Speaker 1 (claimant) ended her part very early!!
Speaker 2 was grilled very hard by the judges, pin-pointing his mistakes while referring to their memo. There is confusion on the faces of the judges regarding the issues. Judges even gave practical example to justify their point. Speaker 2 exceeded his by 2 minutes.

Courtroom 6:
Speaker 2:
It seems that confusion is still prevailing. No consensus between the judges and the speaker. The respondent instead of rebutting the issues of the claimant, were constantly being questioned by the judges. Well one thing I noticed, the speakers were again and again telling the wrong page number of the bench memo. The Speaker extended his time by 2 minutes. In order to quickly wrap up the issues, the speaker couldn't elaborate his issues. Disappointment could be seen on the faces of the judges.


Courtroom 6: Judges filling the mark sheet of the participants

Quarter Finals

The teams that qualified for the quarter finals are :


NUALS, Kochi

NLU, Odisha

RGNUL, Patiala

School of Law, Christ University

NALSAR, Hyderabad

Amity IP

SLS, Pune

Court room 1

Judges - Akshay Sapre, Abhijeet Swaroop and Ankur Khandelwal


The judges have seated and the proceedings have started.

Courtroom 1
Speaker 1 Claimant
The counsel was well versed with the issues and is making a n effective use of the compendium and memo. The judges seemed to be convinced to some extent. She had a confident reply to all the questions posed by the bench.

Courtroom 1
Speaker 2  Claimant
The speaker got tangled in her argument about demonetisation, being asked to comment on the validity of the policy. She doesn't seem to be as well versed as the previous speaker. The counsel was once again caught in the questions of the judges. despite this, she very well brought out the ill effects of demonetisation on the party. She brought in a new angle of property rights which impressed the judges to some extent. The counsel has now put forth the prayer, thereby completing the arguments on her side within the prescribed time limit.⁠⁠⁠⁠

Courtroom 3

Judges - Kheinkorr Lamar, Ashwini Kumar and Shivendra Pandey
Participants - NALSAR v RGNUL

Speaker 1 Claimant

The speaker seems to have a lot of documents in hand and is having problems comprehending his own memo, nevertheless the speaker is well versed with the issues and is puting forth his arguments. The judges are not leaving any chance to grill him.
The honorable arbitrators of this court room are KK lamarr, ashwini kumar and shivendra pandey.
The judges are giving him a hard time, the guy is quite nervous and there is a lot of confusion.

Speaker 2 Claimant

The speaker has amazing speaker notes and is very quick in citing footnotes and articles, this seems to have impressed the judges a lot, not much of a grilling for this chap, the arguments that he has presented, i suppose he has left the judges spellbound, they are not able to move their eyes away from the speaker, there were some basic questions like difference btw damages and compensation,the council rests his case with a well recited prayer.

Speaker 1 Respondant

The speaker one seems to be a very promising one, started his speech with a summary of facts, the poor chap is getting grilled a lot on the jurisdiction issue,there seems to be a little chaos, and the speaker seems to have lost his way, he is talking of criminal cases and infringement rights, when seeing the judges favors is not a good point to argue upon, the speaker asserts that there is nothing to prove the piracy of the copies, and they are alleging that the copies were already pirated and it has nothing to do with him, he is giving some strong contentions about the piracy which seems to amuse the judges, this chap seems to claim that contracts supersede law, and is also explaining his case with a hypothetical eg. when asked by the judges.

The speaker 2 (Respondent), is confused and is being grilled a lot, she is a good listener and is anwering after taking some time, she is arguing well, but she seems to have struck at a point and is in a precipice, she dosen't have any caselaws to support her case, she is giving funny arguments and the judges are having a good time laughing, she has been given an extension of 3 mins to sum up her arguments, she is talking about demonetisation and sayd that the currency is a legal tendor, but she seems to favor naksha more,although she is representing batla as well.


Court Room 2

Judges-  Varun Tankha, Sumeer Sodhi, Vinayak Panikkar

Participants- Amity Law School,Delhi v School of Law, Christ University


Court Room 4

Judges-Rishabh Sancheti, Ankur Khandelwal,Abhijeet Swaroop

Participants- NUALS, Kochi v NLU Odhisha

Semi Finals

The teams that qualified for semi finals are :

NALSAR, Hyderabad; NLUO; Amity IP; SLS, Pune.

Court Room 1

Judges - Kheinkor Lamarr, Vikas Mehta, Avani Verma

Participants - NLUO vs Amity IP


Judges (L to R) Kheinkor Lamarr, Vikas Mehta, Avani Verma

Claimants; Speaker 1
The semis have started, i mudt say,the quality of the judges and the speakers has increased tremendously.
Council 1started with stating the facts, she has a good chalked out plan for her speech, her courtroom manners are commendable, there isn't much of grilling.
There are some basic and repeated question about expropiation and demonetisation, she is curt with her answers and is well versed with the footnotes and citations.
Madam KK Lamarr will amuse you with her expressions; speaker 1 got an extra time of 3 mins, and has submitted all her arguments.


Claimants; Speaker 2

Council 2 started on a good note; the situation has changed a lot, yesterday the judges were grilling as if they would pounce upon the counsel whenever they can, today they act like empathetic people,listening to the counsels with great concern.

Madam lamarr is great with her expressions, she will never fail to amuse you.
Counsel 2, is dealing with the piracy issues, and is emphasising the point that the IPR laws are weak.
Bad choice, shouldn't have started with IPR laws, it seems arbitrator mehta struck a chord with IPR, and started asking a lot of questions.
There is absolutely no moment silence in the courtroom, and the situations is tense.
Council 2 is commendable,his speaking skills are great, submitting his arguments, he has moved on to his prayer.
Times up!


Respondents; Speaker 1

The speaker in his nervousness adressed himself as "learned counsel" which gave the judges a moment to grin on.
Madam avani seems to be in deep thoughts, questions have increased.
The poor chap has repeatedly been pronouncing batla as basla, this guy is very well versed with the facts and his arguments, he dosen't even need to refer to his speaker notes, he has submitted his arguments before the stipulated time and has passed on the case to his co-counsel.

Respondents; Speaker 2

Speaker 2 has started her arguments by stating that the client can't comprehend mandarin, even though its not stated in the problem, this amused madam lamarr, and she is giving the counsel tough time.
Speaker 2 is quite assertive, she is very strong and firm on the part that hacking  was not the not the mistake on their part but just the bad luck of claimants. 

Arbitrator avani has been quiet for a long time. The counsel is twisting the facts a lot, she is assuming a bit too much, which is amusing the judges( a lot).
Finally madam avani has spoken, she is grilling the speaker on the applicability of CISG, the counsel asserts that CISG should be applicable as there are no particular laws applicable in her case.
Speaker 2 is very very confident, even serious grilling on the part of madam lamarr has not been able to break her, she is anwering well, but she is a bit too fast.
The counsel's arguments on asking damages from the arbitrator tribunal are a little contradictory, and she is caught in her own loop hole.
 The time's up, but she is smart enough to lead the judges to her next issue of investments in batla and has been given an extra time of 3 mins to sum up, she is supporting her agruments with a lot o laws and claims that the claimants never approached the enforcements mechanism amd has moved on to the prayer.

No comments yet: share your views