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


Here are the results of the 3rd NLUO IMAM, 2016:

WINNERS: GNLU, Gandhinagar


BEST MEMORIAL: National Law School of India University

BEST SPEAKER: Ms. Digyasha Sharma, RGNUL, Patiala

We congratulate all the winners and teams that chose to undertake this voyage with us! On behalf of the Oragnizing Committee, it's been a pleasure playing host these two days.



ILS, PUNE (Claimants) v. GNLU (Respondents)


3:51 PM - Mr. Murali Neelakantan is on a war-path and the trail of destruction currently finds strewn ILS' first submissions all across it. 


3:53 PM - After a couple of minutes of shaky arguments, the oralist concedes her first submission completely and moves on to the next issue. We've been treated to a proactive finals so far! 


3:54 PM - And the second issue begins on a similar note with the oralist finding herself well and truly cornered. ILS find themselves in a very tricky situation.


3:55 PM - A small ILS discussion bears no fruit as it is not helping their case in any way so far.


4:06 PM - More misery piles on ILS with Mr. Murali Neelakantan toying with the ILS side yet far. The Tribunal is beginning to lose its patience.


4:25 PM - The Tribunal is continuing the lead the ILS team into traps constantly, but the second oralist is faring better than her co-counsel. At the moment. We've learnt that nothing can be taken for granted in this round.


4:39 PM - For over 10 minutes the Tribunal has bamboozled the team on quantification of damages. The speaker is clearly struggling, as it seems that the team has failed to include these claims in their prayer.


THE FINALISTS ARE (in order of breaks):




THE SEMI-FINALISTS ARE (in order of breaks):



3. ILS






                                                                                             DAY 2


10:00 AM - SEMI-FINAL 1 - ILS v. HNLU

The ILS oralists are well-prepared, but the first blood of the day is drawn by the Tribunal. Although the arbitrators seem happy to take the back seat and let the oralists make their submissions, they are not letting them get away with mistakes or cases that they think it irrelevant.

10:15 AM - The issue relating to jurisdiction does NOT end well for ILS. Could this possibly give HNLU the advantage against a team that's been generally excellent throughout the tournament?

10:40 AM - The ILS speakers finish well. Their previous mistakes seem to have been well covered for.

11:07 PM - Respondents seek to establish a contravention of the public policy of India to show that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction in the present matter. However, the arbitrators don't seem very convinced with the way the arguments are put.

11:30 PM - The second speaker is cutoff in her very first sentence and asked to answer the question that was unanswered by her co-counsel. All seems to be downhill from there as she struggles to manage time.  

11:45 PM - Questioning intensifies as the judges break down every single argument of the Respondents. The performance doesn't seem to be satisfactory as of yet. 

12:01 PM - As the first Semi-final draws to an end, the Claimants stick to case laws in their rebuttals to challenge the legal position taken by the Respondents. While the Respondents seek to distinguish them on facts.

12:16 PM - SEMI-FINAL 2 - NLSIU v. GNLU 

The second Semi-Final is underway. The first speaker from NLSIU starts confidently and she tries to distinguish between the substantial and procedural law applicable in an arbitration to justify that an arbitration agreement between two Indian parties may derogate from domestic law.

12:35 PM - The speaker is well prepared. Her confidence is displayed in how well she is handling the barrage of questions. The team has numerous small meetings in between to discuss certain key points before answering the questions. 

12:55 PM - The second speaker is off to a slow start. While he seems clear about his own arguments, the arbitrators have more than a few clarifications to seek.

01:03 PM - The arbitrators still seek further clarifications on the damages issues and stick to one line of questioning which the speaker seems to be unable to completely appreciate.

01:18 PM - Now, the Respondents, GNLU, have their turn to present their case. Their first speaker is present her arguments in a structured fashion but is speaking very fast.

01:30 PM - Though the first speaker is off to a decent start, the arbitrators are now confused by his submissions which in the view of the tribunal is contradicting what the earlier speaker said.

01:43 PM - After spending a lot of time on the issue of sandblasting and who is liable to pay for the works on the ship, the arbitrators are concerned about the "dirty arguments" presented by the Respondents.

01:48 PM - The tribunal hols the second speaker to a possible bad faith practise by his clients and points out they are not coming to the tribunal with 'clean hands'. The arbitrator also requests him to move away from "sticky arguments".

02:00 PM - The semi-finals have drawn to a close now. The results of the Semis shall be updated soon!

THE QUARTER-FINALISTS ARE (in order of breaks):


2. SLS, Pune




6. ILS


8. Amity, Delhi


The match-ups for the quarterfinals are:

HNLU (C) v. RGNUL (R) 

ILS (C) v. SLS, Pune (R)


Amity, Delhi (C) v. GNLU (R)


Welcome to the live blog of the 3rd NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot, 2016! Throughout the course of this moot, we promise to bring you complete, unbiased and hard-hitting real-time coverage, straight from the courtrooms!


The teams participating in this tournament are:

1. Amity Law School, Delhi (ALS)

2. D.E.S. Navalmal Firodia Law College, Pune (DES, Pune)

3. Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (DSNLU)

4. Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar (GNLU)

5. Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur (HNLU)

6. ILS, Pune (ILS)

7. Jindal Global Law School, Sonepat (JGLS)

8. National Law Institute University, Bhopal (NLIU)

9. National Law School of India University, Bangalore (NLSIU)

10. National Law University Jodhpur (NLUJ)

11. National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi (NUALS)

12. Punjab School of Law, Patiala (PSL)

13. Rajiv Gandhi School Of Intellectual Property Law, Kharagpur (RGIIT)

14. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala (RGNUL)

15. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow (RMLNLU)

16. School of Excellence in Law, Chennai (SOEL)

17. Symbiosis Law School, Pune (SLS)

18. University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun (UPES)

We wish the teams all the best in the tournament! 





11:50 AM: The courtrooms are now live!




11:53 AM: Chamber 4 - The Claimant starts soundly, with their first oralist completing his first issue without any interruption by the judges. Smooth sailing so far. Hits a rough patch with the observance of duty of care by Claimant, but navigates just fine.


11:54 AM: The media team is working hard to bring you the worst maritime puns heard.


 11:57 AM: Chamber 3 - First oralist from Claimant shows little signs of sea sickness but makes a strong finish with her two issues.


12:00 PM: Chamber 2 - The able bench of Ankit Khushu, Josy John and Mukul Aggarwal probably resemble Neptune's trident to the oralist. Starts a little apprehensively, but grows in confidence as the round progresses.


12:02 PM: On popular demand, we'll be scaling down references to the sea.


12:10 PM: Chamber 5 - Claimant concedes to a point on the liability of the Captain but otherwise holds on.


12:15 PM: Chamber 2 - Respondent's first oralist starts slowly and is braving a barrage of questions.


12:20 PM: Chamber 6 - Respondent's oralist is seemingly going around in circles in the midst of constant questioning from a proactive bench.


12:30 PM: Chamber 1 - Both oralists of Respondent were not off to the greatest of starts, but made steady recoveries. 


12:45 PM: Chamber 6 - The second oralist on behalf of Respondent begins positively, covering for questions left unanswered by her co-counsel, but is quickly stopped by Aritra Roy and Ashutosh Mohanty as they seek clarification on the foreseeability of the damage. The word used by our correspondent to describe the bench is simply - 'savage'. Ouch.


1:00 PM: Chamber 3 - The last oralist of the round has soaked in all the pressure and gives one of the calmest performances of the round. 


That brings Round 1 to a close! Round 2 will begin shortly!




1:39 PM - Chamber 3 - The first oralist on behalf of Claimant starts briskly, moving through arguments with the help of awards of past arbitral tribunals.


1:45 PM - Chamber 6 - Claimant's first oralist seems to have a complete hold on his submissions. Self-assured and confident all the way!


1:47 PM - Chamber 2 - The Claimant's oralist is caught in a web of back-and-forth arguments relating to the enforceability of the arbitration clause and its correlation with the ambiguous 'public policy' of India. The oralist tries to find a way through the facts to win the Tribunal over.


1:50 PM - Chamber 6 - Judge Aritra Roy is bringing up the contentious issue of foreign seat of arbitration and the question seems to have completely taken the oralist by surprise. 


1:53 PM - Chamber 3 - Claimant displays a rare effort of team work by consulting each other on the last three questions from the panel. Openly.


1:55 PM - Chamber 3 - The bench call out the teams with their case laws by pointing out that their submissions are based on obiter and not the ratio.


1:55 PM - Chamber 1 - NLUO's Anil Vishnoi (also the co-author of this year's problem) is taking the Claimant oralists through the intricacies of the factual matrix with elan.


1:57 PM - The judges have been the real performers of the day so far! Come on, mooties. Up your game!


2:10 PM - Chamber 1 Respondent's first oralist makes a confident start to Round 2, tackling incessant questioning with success. She remained calm during her submissions and did not fumble even when grilled with questions.


2:14 PM - Chamber 1 - And just as we posted our last comment, Respondent steps up to the arbitrator's rapid-fire barrage of question with nerves of steel. The media team might just have to eat our words for lunch.


2:14 PM - Chamber 5 - Claimant withstands some keen line of questioning in the end of their submissions. Have been largely let off to make their submissions with zen and structure intact.


2:24 PM - Chamber 3 - In their haste to ensure their rebuttals are completely covered, the Claimant's rebuttals are left open-ended. Time management earlier proved to be an issue for the Respondent as well. 


2:31 PM - Chamber 2 -  Ethics, party conduct and economics of running a business takes centre stage in the submissions as claimants present their arguments with phenomenal gusto. This round has been continuing for quite some time now, and the fortunes are changing. The Tribunal negates the entire issue relating to the claim of damages using the ambiguity of the ship's on-hire/off-hire status. The Claimant oralists don't look like a happy lot.


2:48 PM - Chamber 6 - Aritra Roy does what he does best. He's corrected the respondents on the content, claims, ratio, tests laid down under the cases for the last 10 minutes straight.


3 - 4 PM - LUNCH TIME! 



4:00 PM - All courtrooms are back in action! The teams will now battle it out one final time for a spot in the quarter finals later in the evening today.


4:15 PM Chamber 6 - The Claimants first speaker shiftes a huge chunk of his duties to his co-counsel. The research is activily inviveld in the hearning, coaching the second speaker all the way through. However, this display of fine team work, doesn't seem to sit well with the arbitrators.


4:24 PM Chamber 5 - The claimants oralists are trying hard to stick to their structure. They don't seem very happy with the judges needling their structure with questions.


4: 33 PM Chamber 2 - Arbitrator Ankit Kushu questions the claimants on the definition of public policy and dwells into the intricacies of their enforcement and weight as opposed to party autonomy.


4: 34 PM Chamber 6 - The tribunal seems amused by the impatience of the claimants second speaker. Now, they are practically  completing the Respondents first speaker's sentences and have within minutes lead him into a huge trap.


4: 44 PM Chamber 3 - Respondents seem to be right on track as their first speaker starts off confidently and seems to be navigating through her submissions with ease. The tribunal also looks quite convinced with her presentation. 


4: 54 PM Chamber 4 - In startling development, the Respondent foresees questioning from the Tribunal and submits to the jurisdiction beforehand. The arbitrators are equally surprised and can not help but look at each other and smile.


4: 56 PM Chamber 6 - As has been the story all day in Chamber 6, the respondent is befuddled by the questions of the arbitrators and is unsure how to answer. 



7:42 PM Chamber 3 - NLIU v. NLSIU

Claimant Aritra Roy starts with grilling the first speaker. He is being interrupted after every sentence but he seems to know the facts really well.


7:47 PM Chamber 1 - HNLU v. RGNUL

The HNLU speaker sets off to calm slow start. While he able to show case a wide knowledge of cases laws governing arbitration in India, he seems to be struggling in factually linking the present case with them. 


7:52 PM Chamber 1 - HNLU v. RGNUL


HNLU's second oralist starts off strongly, and displays a thorough knowlegde of the facts and law. Remains unperturbed even in the face of some mean questioning. The teams are beginning to show some grit now.


8:02 PM Chamber 1 - HNLU v. RGNUL


Both the claimant speakers seem very restless. Continuously cutting off judges in between their questions and dodging questions by telling the tribunal that they will be dealt later doesnt seem to impress the arbitrators.


8:14 PM Chamber 4 - Amity, Delhi v. GNLU


Amity's second oralist is able to convince the judges. She seems to know the facts thoroughly. Convincing performance so far.


---------------------------------------------------------------------END OF DAY 1--------------------------------------------------------------------- 













No comments yet: share your views