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



The 4th NLIU-Juris Corp Moot Court Competition is back. This year there are prizes worth Rs. 1, 10,000 to be won.

Winner: 50,000

Runner Up: 30,000

Best Speaker: 10,000

Best Researcher: 10,000

Best Memorial: 10,000. 

One of the most sought after and rich corporate law moots in the country, the event is spread over three days from 18th October to 20th October. On 18th we had the inaugural ceremony followed by draw of lots. On 19th the real action kicks in as the day witnesses the preliminary rounds, octa-finals and the quarter-finals in over 17 court rooms. The semi-finals and final rounds followed by the valedictory ceremony are scheduled to take place on 20th October.

The moot problem of the 4th NLIU Juris Corp Corporate Law Moot Court Competition, 2013 which has been drafted by the partners of Juris Corp, basically revolves around Securities Contract Regulation Act, Companies Act and Competition Act. The various issues in the moot problem are the call option, acquisition of indirect control and anti-competitive agreements.  The issues involve Indian and foreign company and their stake holders and involve the transactions relating to the buying and selling of shares.

You can access the problem here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1Gh1N3M9FkRYkloT0F0N2xjbnM/edit

The current edition of the competition has a quorum of over 40 judges from various fields of law that include practicing High Court and Supreme Court Lawyers, High Court Judges along with partners and senior associates at various law firms of national repute. The competition has also, in order to make it just and fair for the teams, adopted the method of dynamic seeding for the teams on the basis of memorial scores that prevents top eight teams from going against each other in the preliminary rounds.

NLIU, Bhopal is proud to be the host to the following teams from various law colleges across the country.

  1. Amity Law School, Delhi
  2. Amity Law School, Noida
  3. Campus Law Center, Delhi
  4. Christ Law College, Bangalore
  5. Government Law College, Mumbai
  6. Gujrat National Law University, Gandhinagar
  7. Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur
  8. Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
  9. Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad
  10. Jamia Milia Islamia, Delhi
  11. Jindal Global Law School, Sonepat
  12. KLE Society Law College, Bangalore
  13. Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida
  14. Nalsar University of Law, Hyderabad
  15. National Law School of India University, Bangalore
  16. National Law University, Delhi
  17. National Law University, Jodhpur
  18. National Law University, Orissa
  19. National University of Judicial Sciences, Kolkata
  20. Pravin Gandhi College of Law, Mumbai
  21. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala
  22. Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University, Lucknow
  23. School Of Excellence in Law, Chennai
  24. Seedling School of Law and Governance, Jaipur National University, Jaipur
  25. Shri Vile Parke Kelavani Mandal’s College of Law, Mumbai
  26. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  27. University Five Year Law College, Rajasthan
  28. University Law College, Bangalore
  29. University Law College, Orissa
  30. University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun
  31. University School of Law and Legal Studies, Delhi
  32. Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, Delhi

You can also find us here: http://nliu-mca.blogspot.in/2013/09/4th-nliu-juris-corp-national-corporate.html

NLIU, like every year would strive to bring you current updates from all that is happening in the competition. People please watch this space to know how your friends are performing and how well your college has done. For all the battering the teams take, for all the nerve wrecking questions the judges ask, for all the genius that teams display and for all the sparks of exuberance which the moot court witnesses, do not forget to come back.


Just few more hours to go, the countdown has begun. Do watch us, when we go live tomorrow. 


NLIU, Media Committee.



Day 2 – Preliminary Rounds I

Good morning people. We have a sunny day over here in Bhopal and the atmosphere over here is electrifying. All the teams are having their breakfast and final revisions are on. Some teams seem nervous whereas some are extremely chilled out. Judges are being briefed about the problem and the arguments.


Please stay with us. We’ll be back with the more news and updates for you from all the courtrooms as soon as the rounds begin. 


10:39 am

We bring you the updates from the round between GLC Mumbai v. JGLS, Sonepat. The first speaker from GLC Mumbai was asked to list five material facts beneficial to him but was cut short in the middle. The judges weren’t too convinced maybe. Later he was extremely grilled on the issue of applicability. The judges do not seem to be in a good mood it feels.

In Nalsar v. Lloyd, judges were giving the first speaker from Nalsar a hard time from the very beginning.


GLC v. JGLS: First speaker’s issues were completely dismissed by the judges and the second speaker was asked again to state the material facts on which she was suppose to rely. Further she was extremely grilled upon the issue of control but was able to maintain her calm and tried to bring back the judges to her decided line of argumentation. Good strategy I must say.

In Nalsar v. Lloyd, the speaker from Nalsar is still being grilled and seems a bit confused. Not good.

NLUO v. NLUJ: The arguments of the first speaker are constantly being disregarded and the second speaker was questioned on the first speaker’s arguments. The moot point for a long time remained the dictionary definition of marketability.



SLS Pune v. RGNUL: The issue of extra time has cropped up. The judges have clarified that since the first speaker took more time than he was supposed to, the other team shall get extra time as well.

Nirma v. SVKM: Speaker one seems to lack on the confidence aspect. The grilling on the issues of shareholding and call option was done by one of the judges. Even though the speaker exceeded the time, the last issue is still not being talked about. Seems there was something wrong with the breakfast. The judges are not at all in a good mood.


 VIPS v. Christ: The speaker one was unaware of the facts of the case and was fumbling over many concepts and recent notifications of SEBI. Due to the paucity of time, he was forced to summarise and the judge questioned about any impromptu arguments that were not mentioned in the memorial.

NLUO v. NLUJ: The judge seems to be very particular for precedents and keeps questioning the speaker for the authorities being cited.


VIPS v. Christ: People, something drastic has happened. The second speaker was unable to answer the questions and the first speaker jumped in to answer them even before the judges asked him. We have never witnessed any such thing happening. The judges would not take this positively.

NUJS v. KLEB: The judges seem pleased by the contentions and arguments of the appellants. However, confusion persisted over the arguments and the precedents being cited by the respondents. Not good.

NLSIU v. Seedling: Judges seemed to disagree with the appellant’s second speaker. Speaker 1 from the respondent ended his arguments comfortably as he wasn’t grilled by the judges much. However, the second speaker was grilled extensively and seemed a bit uncomfortable.    



NLUO v. NLUJ: The first speaker of the respondents was grilled even before he could acknowledge the judges. No time for any breathers by the judges. He also kept alternating between ladyship and lordship and even referred to them as woman ship. Glad that he didn’t use feudal ship.  

Nirma v. SVKM: The judges seem to be a bit crossed as the respondents keep on reading from their memorials and is unaware of even the basic concepts.

RMLNLU v. Amity Delhi: Judges seem to be aggressive making the respondent speaker a little too nervous. Confidence is a key factor in moots. Someone tell this to the respondents.

Amity Noida v. ULC Odisha: The second speaker from Amity Noida got into a heated argument with one of the judges about the validity of constitutional bench decisions. The temperature seems to be rising over here.

UPES v. Jamia Milia Islamia: Judges do not seem much convinced with the line of argumentation being used by UPES and are questioning them to justify their logic.


NLSIU v. Seedling: The preliminary round has come to an end where the judges seem to be unsatisfied by the sur-rebuttals of Seedling.

Nalsar v. Lloyd: The second speaker from Nalsar took a steady start but seemed to falter mid way. Many lose their confidence in the middle. Gear up!

GLC v. JGLS: The judges ridiculed the arguments of second speaker and the speaker failed to convince and satisfy the judges with his arguments regarding the interest of justice.

NLUO v. NLUJ: The first speaker of NLUJ doesn’t seem to have the required documents demanded by the judges. The compendium is a must in such competitions where judges seem to embarrass the teams when they are unable to present the copies of relevant case laws.


RMLNLU v. Amity Delhi: The respondents have been given some extra time to make their arguments sound logical after a huge debate between the speaker and judges. They can utilise the extra time for some brownie points there.

NLUO v. NLUJ: The rebuttals have just begun however, the judges seem impatient. Maybe they can smell the food already.


Nalsar v. Lloyd: The judges have an ear for detail over here. The speaker from Lloyd Law College was grilled by the judges for using the word “point” instead of “paragraph”.

Nirma v. SVKM: Second speaker of SVKM seems confused over his arguments. The judges got uncomfortable with the arguments and scolded the speaker for incorrect authorities.

NLUD v. IITKGP: The arguments from IITKGP were giving very lengthy arguments whereas NLUD seemed confident with their authorities.


SOEL v. CLC: The judges were not very happy with the quality of argumentation put forth by the teams and felt that they were underprepared. That’s depressing! 



With this, the preliminary rounds have come to an end. We shall be heading for a break and give our fingers some rest. We shall be back for the second preliminary rounds in a while. Till then, stay tuned!




ULC Odisha v. PGCL: The appellants seem to be not well versed with the facts and the round looks like a rapid fire session.

SVKM v. ULC Bangalore: The first speaker is being questioned about the vary basics of the law on which the problem is based, like the year the SCRA was enacted and the automatic route of FDI, to which he pleaded ignorance. Say What!

Amity Delhi v. NUJS: Speaker one from Amity was questioned on the precedents cited by him.  

GNLU v. SLS Pune: GNLU speaker was caught in facts. After the initial hiccup, the speaker is now going fine. Dispute, however, is continuing on the applicability of SCRA.

NLU J v. Amity Noida: The speaker from the appellant was questioned on the legislative history of section 111 of the Companies Act.

Jamia v. VIPS: The first speaker was caught for mistakes on the cover page. She could also not convince the judges about the validity of decisions being quoted by her. Judges seems to have a devised a strategy for grilling the team, with one judge questioning at a time.

UFYLC v. UPES: The speaker seemed to be confused between Article 134 and 136 of the Indian Constitution. The confusion also seems to have crept in as to the application of Companies Act on the facts of the case.

USSLS v. NLSIU: The first seven minutes were spent browsing through the Companies Act. The Judges seemed to be taking the limelight. Both the speakers could not go beyond the material facts.


SVKM v. ULC B: Speaker 2 from SVKM addressed the Judges as the “bench”, forgetting to use the word ‘Hon’ble’ on which the Judges question as to whether he doubted about them being hon’ble. The Judge quoted the speaker himself, thereby demolishing all his arguments.

CLC v. Nirma: The case cited by the speaker from CLC was not accepted by the Judge as the speaker failed to connect it with the facts of the case.


RGNUL v. NALSAR: The speakers from RGNUL exceeded the time limit by 25minutes, striving to make their points clear.

NLU J v. Amity Noida: The Judges and the participants had a few fun filled minutes immediately after the arrival of the speakers from the respondent.


JGLS v. RMLNLU: the Judges appear to be enjoying the arguments being made by the JGLS speakers. They made a confident start.

KLE B v. HNLU: The speaker from HNLU is speaking very fast, and his train of thought needs to be halted a bit. There seem to be team work in the HNLU Camp as chits are being passed to the speaker.

 SVKM v. ULC B: The first speaker from ULC B was grilled on the typographic error on the cover page of the written submission itself, thereby rejecting all arguments on Competition commission. Later, the speaker was also seen pleading ignorance on various fundamental aspects of law relating to CPC. The speaker also introduced his researcher which led to a light moment inside the court room as the Judges mocked the speaker on whether there is an authorized category of advocates called ‘researchers’ in the Supreme Court.

1: 55

Jamia v. VIPS: Speaker 2 of Jamia seems to have convinced the Judges with their arguments. The Judges also highlighted two fundamental flaws in the arguments of VIPS, which diminished their confidence. Speaker 2 of VIPS finished before time.

ULC O v. PGCL: The speaker from ULC O used some pretty harsh words labelling the respondents prayer as ‘shit’. That might not go down well with the Judges.


UFYLC v. UPES: The petitioner’s were found getting confused with their own facts and arguments. The Judges also pointed out the faults in their prayer. The second speaker from UFYLS was questioned on the preamble of the Competition Act.

USSLS v. NLSIU: Judge is really heckling speaker 2 from USSLS.


CLC v. Nirma: The Judges commented on the memorial of Nirma that it contains too much of references but lacks relevant binding case laws.

ULC O v. PGCL: Judge explained a point that what one pays for belongs to him, by bringing humor with his reference to the Levis Jeans.


Amity Delhi v. NUJS: The round seems to be going well inside the Court room with the mooters taking the usual and well accepted line of arguments.

KLE B v. HNLU: HNLU’s speaker granted 10minute extra time to drive home his point. Thereafter the second speaker took over making persistent references to the material facts. Some light moments were also shared inside the room.


Lloyd v. GLC: Speaker 1 from GLC steadied his ship by taking 9 extra minute but succeeded in highlighting his point. Speaker 2 took forward the point.


USSLS v. NLSIU: Speaker 1 of NLSIU is being taken into task on the issue regarding inclusion of CCI. However, he seems to have survived the onslaught and a consensus between the speaker and Judges has been reached.

KLE B v. HNLU: HNLU speaker asked the Judges to rely on newspaper report, surprisingly in these times of paid media.


RGNUL v. NALSAR: Speaker 1 from NALSAR seems confused, and Judges are trying to confuse her even more. #Vicious circle. The Judges were angered due to clerical errors in the memorials. 


Prelim Rounds thus come to an end. We will be back shortly with the results. It is time to feed our starving stomachs. Live blogging is a real pain, but fun as well!  


 We have received the results of the Preliminary rounds. The teams that have qualified for the octa-finals are:


  1. Amity Law School, Noida
  2. Christ Law College, Bangalore
  3. Government Law College, Mumbai
  4. Gujrat National Law University, Gandhinagar
  5. Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur
  6. Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
  7. Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad
  8. Jindal Global Law School, Sonepat
  9. Nalsar University of Law, Hyderabad
  10. National Law School of India University, Bangalore
  11. National Law University, Jodhpur
  12. National University of Judicial Sciences, Kolkata
  13. Pravin Gandhi College of Law, Mumbai
  14. Seedling School of Law and Governance, Jaipur National University, Jaipur
  15. University Law College, Bangalore
  16. University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun

The Octa-finals are set to begin in another half hour. Please keep watching this space for further updates and more kick-ass action.


After a few upsets and surprises, the qualifying teams are back in the game to fight it out for the top honours. So lets begin with the octa-finals.


UPES v. IIT KGP: The first speaker from UPES makes a stuttering start, fumbles over concepts and interpretations. Time to buck up!!!


HNLU v NLUJ: The rounds start the usual way, the speaker from HNLU is stable and firm on his points and the judges seem to be giving a patient hearing.

JGLS v. Amity Noida: And its back to the basics for team JGLS as the first speaker from JGLS asked to state 5 material facts by the judges. The judge grills the speaker over the Vodafone case with regard to call options and applicability of spot delivery contracts. Stay rooted guys!!!!


NUJS v. PGCL: An olive branch offered to NUJS. The judge gives the option to NUJS speaker to strike off one of the pages of their pages and the speaker seems more than happy to do so.

HNLU v. NLUJ: Judges do not seem to be satisfied with HNLU’s argument regarding the company’s shareholding. Some more convincing needed here.


Nirma University v. NLSIU: The speaker seems to be engrossed in the discussion regarding question of jurisdiction under article 136 of the constitution of India. Judges can be demanding sometime!!

UPES v. IIT KGP: First speaker for UPES seems to have got back his nerve and his slowly proceeding to drive home his point.


JGLS v. Amity Noida: Judges seem to differ with the arguments of the counsel for JGLS and  ask for better explanation. Legal issues take the forefront.


NUJS v. PGCL: The judge wonders out loud why every team is harping on the same line of argument. Time for some CREATIVITY guys!!!

JGLS v. Amity Noida: The second speaker for JGLS tries to complete the arguments left unaddressed by the speaker one. The second speaker was grilled upon the issue of anti-competitive agreements. However, the speaker was unable to cite the case, when asked for, to support his argument that no other company was driven out of the market.


Christ v. GLC: Speaker two tried to prove her case without any case in support of it. This has brought her the ire of the judges. The Judge made a mistake in asking the question which resulted into a laughter across the room, thus reducing the tension inside the Court room.

NUJS v. PGCL: The counsel seeks a moment with his teammates to determine whether the said agreement in question is anti-competitive or not. Lucky team, the judges show their humane side …..


HNLU v. NLUJ: The judges not satisfied with the arguments related to price given by the appellants and with this the respondents take the podium.

NUJS v. PGCL: NUJS seems to have landed on the wrong side of the law. The judge reprimands the team and says “you are legally incorrect, factually incorrect and successfully destroyed your own argument”. Right after this he proceeds to grill the researcher about ordinary rights. Thereafter speaker one is back to argue his point in the allotted 30 seconds.


NALSAR v. Seedling: Speaker one from NALSAR makes a slow yet steady start, grilled by the judge on issues relating to sharing, indirect control, motive and intention, seeks justification on basis of case law.

UPES v. IIT KGP: Speaker two of UPES is fumbling from the very start and is failing to answer the questions posed to him but seems determined to get back on track…all the very best!!!


JGLS v. Amity Noida: Judge grills JGLS on the clubbing of the 3 cases on the cover page of the submission. Seems there could have been a better start to the proceedings for JGLS.


HNLU v. NLUJ: First speaker from Respondent takes the wrong turn , ends up faltering on the issue of  jurisdiction of high court.

ULC B v. GNLU: Speaker two of ULC B accused of misleading the judges. Cites a single bench judgement as a division bench one, judges accuse him of going against professional ethics. Some malpractices by the budding lawyer!!!!


Christ University v. GLC: Speaker one of GLC seems to be precise and to the point. Finishes arguments 4 minutes before time. No questions from the judges.



ULC B v. GNLU: Speaker one asked to speak again after speaker 2 to reply to the questions posed to him. Judges seem to be steamrolling the ULC B team. Game of musical chairs begins!!


ULC B v. GNLU: ULC B seems to have rubbed the judges the wrong way as the judges suggest that the counsels should be thrown out for not having the bare acts. GNLU gets grilled for the contents of their cover page. Spicy lunch for the judges showing its true colours….


NALSAR v. Seedling: Speaker one from the respondent was asked not to mislead the court if he is not sure about the position of law himself.

JGLS v. Amity Noida: The judge questions the counsel on whether the options contract in the current scenario has any time period to which the speaker conceded that there wasn’t any. Moreover the judge asked the speaker to provide the source of the definition of call options for which he asked for the SEBI  notification copy to which the counsel replied that it was their own interpretation and that the counsel didn’t have the required copy. The teams seem to be up for every challenge.....


Christ University v. GLC: Speaker two of respondent seems slightly confused with the questions posed to him as the speaker spends majority of his time listening to the questions rather than answering them. Thankfully a much neede breather for the speaker as the judges ask her to move to the next issue.


NUJS v PGCL: Now heres something out of blue. The first speaker from PGCL was interrupted at the five minute mark of his speech where he was given an option to transfer his leftover time to her co-counsel on the condition that the remaining time would be doubled to which the speaker daringly agreed. As the second speaker starts speaking there is a joke cracked by the judges as the whole courtroom bursts into laughter. Some daring baits being taken by PGCL.


UPES v. IIT KGP: The first speaker from IIT not able to substantially prove his points through arguments. The second speaker focuses too much on history and thus the judge asks him to come back to the facts and the judges also confirm the same from the opposite party.


ULC B v. GNLU: Lot of haggling about jurisdiction going on as to whether it is under competition act or article 136 of the constitution.

NUJS v. PGCL: The second speaker from PGCL requested for more time “for” the interest of justice to which the judge replied “IN the interest counsel, IN”. Primary grammar lessons do come in handy!!!


JGLS v. Amity Noida: The speaker says that the preamble of the competition act is binding on the court which was mocked by the judges. Some revisiting of legal points needed….

UPES v. IIT KGP: IIT second speaker suggests absurdity creates confusion and fails to prove that there is control. In the process fails to recite his prayer, which he later does on the insistence of the judges.


JGLS v. Amity Noida: The second speaker from Amity Noida states that law is nothing but logic and proceeds to further his arguments based on points of law and logic. Nice strategy!!


With this we come to the end of another gruelling session where the teams have sweated it out to make it for the quarter. The result will be out soon. 

 The results of the Octa-finals are out. The teams going for the quarters are as follows:

  1. Christ Law College, Bangalore
  2. Gujrat  National Law University, Gandhinagar
  3. Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur
  4. Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur
  5. Jindal Global Law School
  6. National Law School of India University
  7. National University of Judicial Sciences, Kolkata
  8. Seedling School of Law and Governance, Jaipur National University, Jaipur



‘Survival of the fittest’- that is what NLIU Juris Corp moot is all about. Finally, from the long list of 32 teams, the competition has boiled down to the final 8 teams. All the best to the teams. Let the battle begin.


HNLU v. JGLS: The rounds began with a little confusion as appellants and respondents were asked to switch their seats. Let’s see if the flipping of the ‘sides’ prove lucky for them!

Seedling v. GNLU: The first speaker from seedling was asked to jump straight to the issue of jurisdiction, and is being grilled about the relevant section of jurisdiction. So much for brevity! The speaker seemed to be pretty confident and is tackling all the questions in a calm and composed manner. The team is being grilled over the shareholder’s position in the contract in response to which the speaker keeps on referring to the memorial. Seems like a successful strategy so far!


Seedling v. GNLU: The grilling continues and the Judges seems a bit unsatisfied with the arguments, as the speaker appears to be losing confidence and begins to fumble. But the speaker appears to be well versed with the authorities and is able to cite case laws for every query being posted but somehow it does not seem to strike the perfect cord with the Judges.

IIT KGP v. NUJS: It seems like as shaky start for IIT KGP, as the Judges takes IIT to task for the cover page. Petitioner’s are unable to justify a case which they have cited. The Judges seems unconvinced. Counsel seemed to be wilting under pressure. The famed ‘cover page’ proves fatal yet again for another team!


HNLU v. JGLS: The first speaker seems to be taking things around smoothly citing case laws intermittently. Judges seem to be interested to be interested on the issue of appeals and exhaustion of alternate remedies available to the appellant, following which HNLU convinces the Judges on their point of jurisdiction.

NLSIU v. Christ: Speaker 1 of NLS continues to contend confidently and Judges looked convinced.



Seedling v. GNLU: Oops! The speaker happened to forget the name of the case. The judges were found making weird expressions.


HNLU v. JGLS: HNLU holding out well as they argue the privity of contract and securities.



IIT KGP v. NUJS: The petitioner’s have failed to incorporate a crucial recent judgment in relation to marketability of shares. The first Counsel gets in a fix, but the Judges remain unmoved. Tough battle it seems.

NLSIU v. Christ: The term ‘barrier to entry’ seems to have suddenly invoked the attention of the Judges, following which the speaker is questioned, but is able enough to handle it deftly and nimbly. Barrier cleared!


IIT KGP v. NUJS: The second speaker from IIT is trying hard to convince the Judges of the retrospective application of the press note.

NLSIU v. Christ: The NLS team seems to have come well prepared but had to plead ignorance at the last question. Hence, Perfection remains a myth.


HNLU v. JGLS: Judges disallowed passing of chits as they are getting distracted. HNLU tries to offer alternative arguments but is not received well by the Judges. The Judges seem to be having fun. The basic point of contention seems to be the jurisdiction of SEBI. The Judge remains unmoved by their argument, and their tones becoming more aggressive.

Seedling v. GNLU: The Judges seemed to be satisfied by the arguments being put forward by the counsel for the petitioner. The speaker from Seedling drinks water again, but it surely does not mean that he is nervous but implies that he is only thirsty.


HNLU v. JGLS: The speaker appears to be articulative and in control. The speaker, although aware that the team does not have a copy of one of the cases, appears confident.


Seedling v. GNLU: The second speaker from the petitioner seems to be clarifying his contention that he has made. The Counsel appeared to be getting confused over some concepts of SCRA and therefore was given the permission to highlight the ingredient of the derivative contract, in order to bring home their contention clearly.

IIT KGP v. NUJS: NUJS begins with confidence. They cited opinion of eminent jurist, although got grilled on it. NUJS could have clinched the first issue provided they had the facts of the case they were depending upon.


Seedling v. GNLU: The speaker have exceeded their time limit, but managed to conclude well with their prayer.

NLSIU v. Christ: The second speaker of NLSIU drowning on.


Seedling v. GNLU: The first speaker of GNLU starts in a persuasive manner yet stays assertive, and in the process lays down her main argument. GNLU pleads the division bench to overrule a previous decision of the Supreme Court regarding the present issue. A detailed discussion on Call option and its nuisances ensues thereafter.

NLSIU v. Christ: Christ now takes the podium. The first speaker made reference to the memorial along with the footnotes quite a number of time. She is answering questions well, supported by authorities, but the body language gives a contrary picture. #Eye for detail!


NLSIU v. Christ: The first speaker of the respondent was assertive and when asked about the ratio of a case, she explained it well by referring to the compendium and moves on to summarise her pleading. Good going!

HNLU v. JGLS: The Judges does not seem to be buying the arguments being made by the second speaker of HNLU. The speaker, however, continues to hold his ground but the Judges seems to have trapped the speaker in his own web of arguments and a chuckling away with their glory. #Chakravyu.


HNLU v. JGLS: HNLU finally concedes on changing its prayer. Judges seem to be the happiest lot in the room.


IIT KGP v. NUJS: The speaker from NUJS faltered on the question of veto power. Judges take this opportunity to build pressure on the counsel as the counsel tries to dodge the questions. The Judges persist on the question.

NLSIU v. Christ: The second speaker from the respondent is being intentionally diverted from her main pleading by the Judges through their line of questioning. #Time for her to put all her thoughts in one basket and proceed confidently.


IIT KGP v. NUJS: The Counsel from NUJS is unable to convince the Judges on the question of veto. However, the Judges are not relenting.

HNLU v. JGLS: Speaker from JGLS starts with referring to ‘Section’ rather than ‘Article’ 131 of the Constitution. #Faux pas. Speaker 1 stated that she is not aware of Article 131. #irony.


IIT KGP v. NUJS: NUJS counsel pleads for 5 more minutes to explain his points, but they had to settle with 1. Its race against time!


Seedling v. GNLU: The second speaker from GNLU seems confident and the Judges seemed to have taken a liking with their line their argument. Way too much extra time being given to GNLU.

IIT KGP v. NUJS: The team moves towards their rebuttal.

With the clock nearing 10, and every ounce of our energy completely drained, we finally come to the conclusion of the Quarter finals, and will be back shortly with the result. 

The results of the Quarters are out. The team qualifying for the semi-finals are:

1. Gujrat National Law University, Gandhinagar
2. Jindals Global Law School, Sonepat
3. National Law School of India University, Bangalore
4. National University of Judicial Sciences, Kolkata 

Congratulations to all the teams :D

The semi finals and finals are scheduled to be held tomorrow, starting at 9. 

With this, here is the media team of NLIU, signing off for the night. See you all tomorrow, with lot more updates. Goodnight!


Semi Finals

Good morning folks. After a brief breakfast and a round of extra strong coffee, we are all set to begin with the semi final rounds. The atmosphere is electrifying as the top four teams are competing for the top honours. The judges seem to be pleased with the breakfast and that might take off some tension from the teams.



JGLS v. NUJS: Speaker one from JGLS has taken a bumpy start as the judges have completely disregarded her first argument. In order to make up for the lost ground, the poor chap tried to cite some legal precedents, but to no avail.

GNLU v. NLSIU: Speaker one of the GNLU had to begin from the very basics as she was asked to reiterate the material facts of the case. She isn’t speaking too loud and her manners seem to be calm and persuasive, however, her body language says contrary.



JGLS v. NUJS: The speaker is having a hard time as the judges have questioned his legal precedents. Judges are taking her case left, right and centre for citing an incorrect authority that deals with only options in current season and not in securities. Judges also asked the speaker to start using some valid legal principles in light of the fact that the forum was Supreme Court. Ouch! That might have hurt.

GNLU v. NLSIU: The speaker is able to give a roadmap of how the issues would be dealt with by both the speakers. A good start here.



JGLS v. NUJS: The speaker seems to be gaining some ground finally and is able to firmly prove that in the instant case there is no spot delivery contract. Making up for the loss, pretty good!

 GNLU v. NLSIU: Judges have begun their meteor shower on the speaker. A slow and steady reply to answers in a good strategy but can also display a lack of confidence. A double edged sword to watch out there! Judges seem to want more and more precedents, which the speaker is able to cite. Shows good preparation there! 


JGLS v. NUJS: The speaker was questioned upon the relevance of a CEO in day to day functioning of the company. In reply to speaker’s arguments, the judges regarded speaker’s arguments as “baseless and illogical”. Whoa what?

GNLU v. NLSIU: If the speaker has her authorities, the judges seem to be prepared with their own precedents. The definition of marketability has cropped up with a debate going on between the judges and the speaker and both are citing different case laws. The judges seem to be a bit frustrated by the speaker’s arguments and seem to be not accepting the arguments at all. Is that undigested breakfast or something else?


JGLS v. NUJS: The second speaker has taken the stand has taken a good start. The judges completely disprove his arguments regarding anti-competitive arguments. This can prove to be a major chink in their armour. 


GNLU v. NLSIU: The speaker was handed a SEBI notification to read carefully. After a brief lull, speaker diligently went through the notification in order to answer the question over pre-emptive rights.


JGLS v. NUJS: The second speaker from JGLS is successfully able to convince all the judges regarding every question that is posed to him regarding horizontal and vertical agreements. The judges constantly keep inquiring about the relevant authorities. On the issue of predatory pricing, the speaker takes some time and is able to cite a book from an international author on Competition Law.

GNLU v. NLSIU: As the speaker takes extra time trying to pin point the relevant sections from the SEBI Act which was passed to him from his teammate, the team from NLSIU keeps on burning paper as they scribble some notes. Someone tell them, it is a moot court competition, not a paper writing one. And they also have a stapler for stapling their notes. Someone please shoot me!!


JGLS v. NUJS: Speaker from NUJS takes the stand and seeks to prove via a fourfold argument to prove that call option is valid and enforceable. Fourfold argument – sounds nice.

GNLU v. NLSIU: Someone please stop the speaker. He has already taken a lot of time. Even the court clerk seems to be dozing off. Someone please stop him!


JGLS v. NUJS: Speaker continues to struggles to prove that call option is valid after his previous arguments fail to satisfy the judges.


JGLS v. NUJS: The speaker was able to cite certain articles to prove his point but had to plead ignorance when questioned about options for securities and options in securities. No one messes with the judges. They always have a question to spin your head.

GNLU v. NLSIU: Speaker two FINALLY takes the podium, waits anxiously for the start as the judges delve into his thick memo to which he had referred them to. Nice play there!


GNLU v. NLSIU: The second speaker seems to gesticulate more than he speaks but is meticulous in gathering his arguments and framing them well by citing authorities.

JGLS v. NUJS: The speaker is constantly being grilled on the issue of horizontal agreements as our court clerk who seems to be completely out of the way with the corporate and securities seems too tired. Must’ve had a long night!


JGLS v. NUJS: The speaker is finally able to convince the judges with his flawless logic. Took some time but reached there, as they say, slow and steady wins the race.

GNLU v. NLSIU: The speaker reminds us of one of our seniors from the way he speaks. Both of them speak like they’ve got a train to catch. 


GNLU v. NLSIU: The speaker is trying to devise some new strategies here trying to links his arguments with the previous one. That is really commendable, I must say.

 JGLS v. NUJS: The speaker tries to paint a crystal clear picture of his parties’ intentions. Brilliant logic! However, when questioned if he had received that information from his clients, the counsel seemed flustered.


JGLS v. NUJS: Second speaker from NUJS proceeds to prove the issue of control and is able to demolish the appellant’s arguments. Annihilator mode on!!

GNLU v. NLSIU: The speaker is drawing various analogies with respect to the present scenario and is using this to answer the questions posed to them.


JGLS v. NUJS: The speaker is struggling with the issue of veto power and has sought permission to discuss with his team mates. That isn’t good!

GNLU v. NLSIU: Second speaker from GNLU is trying to make his point about deadlock between the companies in the present case and the judges argue that why they as Supreme Court should be bothered about what happens inside a company? Deadlock or no deadlock!


GNLU v. NLSIU: Speaker two seems to be harping on “why on earth” every time there is any question put forward by the judges. Why on earth are you taking so much time? Get off the podium please.

JGLS v. NUJS: Speaker is unable to reply to the questions posed by the judges and is constantly pleading ignorance.


JGLS v. NUJS: The judges tell the speaker that he will have to address the issue of violation of TIPP during their rebuttals. That is pretty strange. Dealing a whole issue during rebuttals, is completely unexpected! 


JGLS v. NUJS: Rebuttals are on! The appellants ended their rebuttals by refuting the cases cited by the respondents. Good strategy!

GNLU v. NLSIU: The speaker uses the phrase “why on earth” again!! Since the speaker hates earth so much, kindly someone arrange a space shuttle to send him to Mars!


JGLS v. NUJS: The second speaker of NUJS occupies the podium again to reply to the judges’ previous questions.

GNLU v. NLSIU: Finally, the second speaker of GNLU decides to sit back. “Why on earth” did the GNLU teams take so much time? Someone, please give them a copy of the rules.


JGLS v. NUJS: The round has come to an end, with nothing much happening in the rebuttals.

GNLU v. NLSIU: The round has just only reached the mid-point. Why on earth did GNLU take so much time?


GNLU v. NLSIU: The speaker on from NLSIU is loud and assertive, a welcome change, and clearly demarcates the issues and outlines how much time he and his co counsel is going to take. A good start here! Much expected from NLS.


GNLU v. NLSIU: The judges seem to be well prepared and have cited a particular case that goes against the speaker’s contentions. However speaker pleads to the bench to overrule the case as that judgement is bad in law with regard to definitions of some technical terms relating to securities.


GNLU v. NLSIU: The judges have completely disregarded the arguments of the speaker and have made it clear that their arguments hold no ground. I don’t understand why on earth would they say that? 


GNLU v. NLSIU: The first speaker from NLSIU got through his first issue well within time, and was able to convince the Judges as well. But he seems to have been caught in the web of questions being thrown by the Judges on his second issue.


The speaker is managing to make a path for himself for convincing the judge on his submissions.


The speaker 1 has finally taken his seat. The speaker 2 approaches the podium.


The speaker 2 is speaking in a calm and composed tone. Not much questions have been fired on her till now.


The Judges are busy going through the pages of the memorial. They are not even looking at her!


The second speaker seems baffled by the Judges. Two possibility for the same- either because she is not getting the questions or because she does not know the answers! Either way the Judges are only interested in the answers….


The researcher of NLSIU seems to be getting very bored. More than the Judges, it is the bug who seems to be troubling her. The toll of 2 continuous days of mooting is evident on their faces…..hang in there guys!!!



12: 08

The second speaker from NLSIU is striving hard to get her arguments across to the judges regarding vertical and horizontal agreements, but however hard she tries the judges seem to want more…..


The speaker is being grilled by the just one Judge right now. Spared by the other two as of now, is this the lull before the storm….NLS beware!!!


The speaker from NLSIU seems to have got a grip on the situation and is answering all the questions very subtly. She is allotted some extra time for her last issue.


The speaker from NLSIU has finally moved on to her prayer. But the Judges don’t seem to appreciate the ‘reading’ of the prayer!!! Memorisation does help sometime!!!


The speaker from GNLU has several points for the rebuttals, but is fumbling in between due to paucity of time. She requested for her co-counsel to rebut the rest of the points, but was refused by the Judges.


Sur-rebuttal begins. The speaker from NLSIU is citing cases, which has found the Judges on the same page.


Finally, after an extended mooting session, the rounds of GNLU v. NLSIU comes to an end.


With this, we come to the end of the semi final rounds of the 4th NLIU Juris Corp National Corporate Moot Court competition. The results are eagerly awaited!!

People, we have received the results of the semi finals. And the teams that have made through, and would be competing for the winning trophy are Jindal Global Law School, Sonepat and Gujrat National Law University, Gandhinagar.

In the forthcoming finals, JGLS shall be the appellants and GNLU shall be representing the respondents. While the teams are having their lunch, and the judges are being briefed, we eagerly wait for the final rounds to begin. We will be bringing you every single thing that happens inside the auditorium where both the teams shall compete for the top honors in front of eminent jurists from various fields of law. Please, stay with us till then.


Final Rounds

The final fight for glory has begun. The teams JGLS and GNLU are battling it out for a cash prize of Rs. 50,000. The chief guest for the rounds is Justice Rohit Arya, Hon’ble Judge of MP High Court.


The first speaker of JGLS seemed pretty confident and quite clear with her arguments. The auditorium is preoccupied and all the students and participants have come to witness the battle of these two titans.


The first speaker was able to reply to all the questions that were posed to her and the judges looked pretty convinced with her arguments. The speaker emanated of a certain confidence that is pretty evident from her speech.


She keeps the judges engaged by asking them to refer to various footnotes and contentions of her memorial.


Seems like the speaker has assessed the gravity of the final rounds and in her bid to convince the judges, is properly modulating her tone of argument in order to press upon specific points of her arguments.


The first speaker has finally finished her arguments and the second speaker approaches the podium.


The second speaker is continuing with his arguments but seems a bit uncomfortable with a few questions coming his way as he fumbles in between. But soon enough, gets back on his feet, stays calm and composed. The going seems good for JGLS as of now.


The Judges seems to be discussing something among themselves as the speaker continues with his arguments. Look like there is some confusion regarding the JGLS contentions! The speaker is trying to establish his contentions regarding anti-competitive agreements.


The speaker is trying to assert his logic with respect to homogenous consumers and the Judges too seem to be satisfied with his arguments. There is some chatter between the researcher and the speakers and the speakers of the opposing team i.e. GNLU, looks like they are uncomfortable with the JGLS speaker’s smooth sail so far.


The counsel asks for an extra minute from the judges to summarize his arguments and they granted the same. Looks like the judges are really looking for some in-depth knowledge today! Dig deep JGLS!!


The whole of JGLs team stands up as the second speaker recites the prayer. Some brownie points for that under courtroom manners. 


The first speaker from GNLU approaches the podium. Hon’ble Justice Rohit Arya instructs her beforehand to be precise and consider the Judges as a complete layman and not as experts of law.


There is a slight stutter to begin with but her arguments and logic clearly demonstrates her high level of preparation.


Dr. Ghayur Alam, who is judging the round, in reply to GNLU’s pleading for overruling a certain case, asks the speaker to go to the CJI for it as he is a man with only limited powers, in humour. A light moment for the tensed teams!!


The speaker is putting forth her argument regarding section 111A of the companies Act. However, the Judges do not seemed to be convinced with the arguments.


The speaker has gained some grounds now and is well on course.



Judge Dr. Alam asks the counsel about the validity and date of enactment of the Companies Act 2013 and whether it repeals the old Act. The speaker replies and stays firm on her stand all the while. The Judge tries to rattle her. GNLU has encroached well.


Another light moment in the final round as the second speaker from GNLU takes the podium. The mike stops working! And while the GNLU speaker waits for it to be replaced, Justice Arya warns him that he is going to loose his allotted time, if he waits for the mike to be re-installed, as if the Judges were not enough. Now even the technology seems to be playing tricks with GNLU!


Justice Arya requests the speaker to clearly formulate his propositions and to raise his voice, so that he is audible to everyone…. So much for his esteemed voice!


The judges question and correct the speaker over the issue of de-facto and de-jure control. The speaker very cleverly formulated the two conditions and argues on both the conditions where the facts are silent regarding the 60% of share of company in question here.


Speaker is coughing… someone bring some water quick!


The team for JGLS suddenly swung into action and are stifling through the pages of their compendium- preparations for rebuttal. Did the GNLU team strike on their weak point? Do you smell something fishy? Rebuttals are sure going to be intense!!


The speaker contends that there is no difference between positive rights and negative rights. Say what? In view of Judge Dr. Alam, he is turning the whole jurisprudence upside down by contending that.


The second speaker from GNLU seems to get very emotional with his arguments with his gestures sometime speaking more than his actual words. Fortunately the Judges are sitting at some distance!


The second speaker has been allowed a few extra minutes to complete his pleadings. What would JGLS be saying right now.. “WHY ON EARTH !!!!”


Time for rebuttals!


Speaker one from JGLS comes on for the rebuttals. She is very precise and lists down point wise faults in the submission of the GNLU team.


After a few analogies being drawn between the real life Court room and moot courts, Justice Arya allows team GNLU to proceed with their sur-rebuttals but warn them that the luxury of sur- rebuttal does not exist in real life. With this the GNLU team summed up their arguments.



With this, we draw a curtain to the final rounds of the moot court competition.  Time to sit back and wait for the results. We will be back shortly.



 The results of the finals are out!


The huge trophy was lifted by Gujrat National Law University, Gandhinagar. Congratulations to them! The Runner up trophy was lifted by Jindal Global Law School, Sonepat.


Following are the other awards:

Best researcher: Mrida Lakhmani (HNLU)

Best Speaker: Rahil Edward Pereira (HNLU)

Best Memorial: HNLU, Raipur

Congratulations are in order for HNLU as well.


With this we sign off for this year. It is time for celebrations for the winning teams and the participants as well. As everyone moves on for the gala dinner, we too shall be moving to feed our starving stomachs. It is time for us to celebrate as well as NLIU has just won the RLC Saquib Rizvi Memorial National Moot Court Competition. Congratulations to Gunjan Mathur, Rohan Harne and Shivank Virmani who have made us proud. Yayy!!

Next year we shall be back with the same moot. It was nice reporting all that happened over here. The genius that the teams have displayed was phenomenal and world class and we thank the teams for being a part of the competition and making it a successful event.

We would also like to thank MCA Convenor Mr. Kapil Duggal and MCA Co-Convenor Mr. Vipin Upadhyay for being there for the successful organization of the event.

Thank you so much!!

 Please have a look at some of the pics from the final rounds and the valedictory ceremony. 




With this the Media Team of NLIU takes a final bow. Signing off!

It was a pleasure.

Shantanu Tiwari

Shashwat Shekhar

Uzma Naseem

Click to show 25 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.