The 5th NLIU-Juris Corp Moot Court Competition is back again. This year the prize money amounts to Rs. 1,10,000. May the best team win!

The break-up of the same stands at:

Winner: Rs. 50,000

Runner Up: Rs. 30,000

Best Speaker: Rs. 10,000

Best Researcher: Rs. 10,000

Best Memorial: Rs. 10,000.

The 5^th NLIU Juris Corp Moot Court Competition is probably one of the most prestigious national moots in India, especially within the sphere of corporate law moots. The event is spread out over three days from 5^th September to 7^th September. On 5^th September, the inaugural ceremony was held, closely followed by a tense draw of lots. 

On 6^th September, the real action kicks in as the day witnesses the culmination of the preliminary rounds, octa-finals and the quarter-finals, held in around 15 court rooms. The semi-finals and final rounds followed by the valedictory ceremony are scheduled to take place on the final day, i.e., 7^th September.

The moot problem has been drafted by the highly experienced partners of Juris Corp. Its intricate structure contains a running theme of various issues under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, in cohesion with matters pertaining to the Scheme of Arrangement in the Companies Act and the Abuse of Dominant Position under Competition Law.

You may access the problem at: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1Gh1N3M9FkRUmVaQ2F2NnNlcms/edit

The current edition of the competition has a plethora of 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 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. This removes bias and manages to ensure a high level and quality of competition.

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

1.   Amity Law School I
2.   Amity Law School II
3.   Balaji Law College
4.   Chhotanagpur Law College
5.   Dr. Harisingh Gaur University Sagar
6.   Gandhinagar National Law University
7.   Indian Law School, Pune
8.   Governemnt Law College, Mumbai
9.   Government Law College, Thrissur
10.   Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur
11.   Jindal Global Law School
12.   Institute of Law, Nirma University
13.   National Law School India University
14.   National Law University, Delhi
15.   National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam
16.   National Law University, Odisha
17.   National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi
18.   West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences
19.   National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi
20.   Pravin Gandhi College of Law
21.   Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala
22.   Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University, Lucknow
23.   Sastra University
24.   School of Law, Christ University Bangalore
25.   School of Law DAVV
26.   Symbiosis Pune
27.   Tamil Nadu National Law School
28.   University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun

As has been tradition over the past few years, the media team at NLIU shall strive to keep you constantly updated with regards to the various happenings at this competition, ranging from match-ups to details about each speaker and from results to interim events. This live blog shall be a testament to the efforts of the participants, the grueling sessions in the courtrooms and the quintessential experiences of law school. Do follow this blog in order to keep tabs on the performance of your friends, and your college.

You may find us here as well: http://nliu-mca.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/5th-nliu-juris-corp-national-corporate_5.html

In a few more hours, rounds shall start, and the participants, judges and onlookers shall all be reminded why we moot, and why we should never stop.

Cheers!

The Media Committee, NLIU.

Day 2- Prelims, Octas and Quarters

Hello Everyone.

It's a beautiful day out here in Bhopal, and rounds are scheduled to start in a few minutes. The teams are prepped, and their status ranges from completely flustered and at their wit's end to unnervingly calm.

The judges have just been briefed and bench memos have been distributed.

Please stay tuned for real time updates regarding the first prelim round.

 NLU O v. TNNLS - Speaker 1 from NLU O spoke confidently and there has not been much grilling on his issues

RMLNLU v. UPES - The judges are questioning about the CCI and the basic facts related to the moot problem.

GLC, Thrissur v. Balaji Law College - It was pretty conspicous that Speaker 1 from GLC Thrissu was nervous as he spoke. Judges did not  seem to be satifsfied with his reasonings . Speaker 2 from the same team has started presenting his case.

RGNLU v. Nirma- Speaker 1 was grilled extensively . However, speaker 2 isn't being spared either. It seems to be a fun round of mooting to witness.

GLC Mumbai v. NUALS- Speaker 1 is confident but judges are grilling him on his first issue.

11:02 am 

Symbiosis Pune v. NUJS – Speaker 1 for the Petitioners seems to be little confused  .  Judges are not convinced with his arguments.

NLSIU v. Harish Singh Gaur Law College – Speaker 1 has been questioned on facts along with some serious cross questioning by the judges. Extra time granted  to the first speaker. 

Sastra University v. Amity Law College II – Speaker I  responded  well to the questions and the judges seemed impressed .  The judges are not happy with the case presented by Speaker 2 of the same side. 

 11:07

Chotanagpur Law College v. NLU-D- Speaker was grilled extensively. However, the judges were not convinced by his arguments. The atmosphere is very charged.

NUSRL, Ranchi v. School of Law, Christ University- The first speaker was grilled thoroughly and answered each question. However, his answer to the question regarding creditors and notifs was not considered satisfactory. He asked for an extension. Speaker 2 of the petitioner's side was called to the floor. He was asked to base his arguments on the Indian context. However, some statements were contrary to previous arguments. He too, received an extension. There is a huge amount of cross questioning underway regarding the themes of voidability of contracts in light of the Arbitration and conciliation act.

11:19

HNLU v. School of Law DAVV- Speaker 1 was asked to be brief with her argument. Judges were not convinced . Speaker 2 sounds confident . The atmosphere in the courtroom is tensed as the team from HNLU is being heavily grilled by the judges. 

GNLU v. NLUJAA- Both Speaker 1 and Speaker 2 on the petitioner’s side are completing their speeches within their requisite time slots. However, with regards to Speaker 1, there was rigorous cross-questioning. Speaker 2 has requested an extension.

11:33

JGLS v. ILS- The petitioner's first speaker was extensively questioned about the issue pertaining to the CCI as well as certain portions of the team's compendium.

RGNLU v. Nirma- Speaker 1 from Nirma handled the questions well . Speaker 2 has been asked to proceed slowly for the benefit of the court . 

Pravin Gandhi Law College v. Amity Law School- I- The round seems to be proceeding well. However, certain arguments were not well-received by the judges

GLC Mumbai v. NUALS - The Respondents have started presenting their case. Its a serious session of mooting. Both the speakers from NUALS have been thoroughly cross questioned. However, the judges don't seem to be convinced.    

TNNLS V. NLU-O- Speaker 2 from the petitioner's side is being asked about precedents regarding his issues. The judges did not seem very satisfied though, and he thus ran out of time. Soon after, the first speaker from the respondent's side came to the floor and was promptly grilled. Speaker 1 kept within his time slot. Speaker 2 of the respondent's side is now undergoing a very serious session in court. Again, the judges do not seem very satisfied.

11:41 am 

NUSRL, Ranchi v. School of Law, Christ University- The first speaker from the respondent's side has come to the podium, and is proving his mettle. He seemed very confident, despite a hard session. He was given an extension. 

JGLS v. ILS - Speaker 2 from JGLS  is presenting his case. He is being questioned on damages and market shares. Judges are asking him questions out of the memorial submitted by the participating team. 

11:46 am 

NUSRL, Ranchi v. School of Law, Christ University- Speaker 2 from the respondent side has been called to the floor. However, judges have stated that he is referring to foreign jurisprudence a bit too much for their liking. 

GNLU V. NLUJAA  - First speaker from the respondent side was unable to convince judges due to insufficient factual analysis. The judges are confused regarding what side Speaker 2 is representing. This session is probably one of the most charged amongst all the match-ups. It is a true test of genuine mooting skills. 

11:49

HNLU v. School of Law DAVV - Judges disregard the arguments of the respondents due to usage of legal terms lacking context. The judges have asked the respondents to present fresh arguments because the line of arguments taken by the respondent is pretty similar to that of the appellants. 

Chotanagpur Law College V. NLU Delhi - Speaker 2 from the appellants side argued well and the environment does not seem to be very tensed as couple of light moments are exchanged.  The judges were satisfied with the first speaker from the Respondent side. The speaker confidently dealth with all question asked.  The mooting atmosphere heated up as Speaker 2 from Respondent was not able to tackle the questions posed by the judges. 

NLSIU v. Dr. Hari Singh Gaur Law College- The round is proceeding well, and the first speaker from the respondent time has reached the podium. The round seems tense.

11:59 am 

GLC Thrissur v. Balaji Law College - The judge is explaining the basic concepts to the Respondent 2 as he is unable to answer questions posed to him .

NUSRL, Ranchi v. School of Law, Christ University- The petitioners have approached the podium for rebuttals and have adopted an aggressive approach to the same.

12:04

Sastra University v. Amity Law School II- The respondent's first speaker has had to endure a very tough round and was not able to answer some questions adequately. However, the second speaker was also similar. The judges are making them refer the memo time and time again

12:08

Symbiosis , Pune v. NUJS – The round has  nearly concluded. Despite a shaky start by the first speaker, the team from Symbiosis bounced back.  Both the teams were confident and have presented strong cases to defend their sides.

12:13 pm

RMLNLU v. UPES - Speaker 2 from the appeallant side was questioned rigorously from the compendium. The Speaker was pretty comfortable in answering. The Respondents started on a confident note , however , they  could not keep up.  The judges told speaker 1 from the respondents side that the contentions from the respondents side are contradictory . It seems to be interesting round of mooting. 

12:30

JGLS v. ILS - ' Speaker 1 from respondent side was interestingly questioned on details of citations. The judges also thoroughly questioned the speaker on legislative technicalities. Speaker 2 is also being questioned extensively regarding the memorial and this led to discussions among the judges. They did not seem particularly satisfied. 

12:45

The first preliminary round has almost reached its conclusion. This has been a truly exemplary set of match ups. Results for the same shall be released soon.

1:23 pm

After a splendid first round, the judges are back to the courtrooms and the second prelimnary round has commenced.  

                                                                         PRELIMINARY ROUND II

1 : 36 

School of Law DAVV v. NLU O - Speaker 1 from petitioners side  struggled to provide authority for the arguments he  provided. The judges were of the view that the speaker  mixed up  the issues . Speaker seemed  nervous as judges in this round are testing on the participant more on basic knowledge of the law. Speaker 2 from the same side , after witnessing his co-counsel's performance seems nervous as he fumbles while arguing.

NLUJAA v. RMLNLU- The first speaker from the petitioner side has commenced his speech. He is very confident and was able to answer the questions posed by the judges regarding certain distinctions amongst various clauses in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The judges seem quite convinced with his arguments and he was able to wrap up his arguments within the stipulated time. 

1:43 pm

Harisingh Gaur University Sagar vs  Sastra University - According to the judges,  Speaker 1 from the petitioners side is not well versed with the legal terms. However, she is persistent and seems to be confident with a stern voice. 

NUALS v. NUSRL, Ranchi- As it seems to be a major point of contention, speaker 1 from the petitioner's side is being questioned thoroughly on the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. However, the judge is requesting more specificity. Another point of contention seems to be the applicability of the Limitations Act. This seems to be flustering the speaker

1:46 

NUJS v. Pravin Gandhi Law College- This round started off very smoothly, but with the passage of a certain amount of time, the first speaker from the side of the petitioner started being cross questioned very intensely.

Nirma v. JGLS- Speaker 1 from the petitioner's side has arguments that are heavily laden with case law.However, he is under fire from the bench.

1:53 pm

Amity Law School- II v. NLSIU- Speaker 1 has made a brief statement of facts. The judges are primarily questioning the speaker on basics of arbitration. Extensive reference to the compendium is being made by the speaker.

ILS v. RGNLU – The Judges are questioning the petitioners on arbitration law. The petitioners side seems to be more confident than the previous rounds. 

1:58 pm

NLUJAA v. RMLNLU- Speaker 2 from the petitioner's side concluded his speech satisfactorily, within the stipulated time. The respondent then took over the podium, and his affairs seem rather sorted, which is usually an anomaly in most moots. This was followed by respondent's second speaker who carried on the undercurrent of this round, and did so without getting befuddled.

UPES v. GNLU- The judges seem interested in the technicalities of specific provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Its all about the basics in this court room. Speaker 2 from the appellant side seems flustered as the judges have refused to accept references made to the compendium.

Nirma University v. JGLS- Speaker 2 from the appellant side was reprimanded for proceeding at too fast a pace. The judges do not seem to pleased. The judges seem to find the arguments made by speaker 2 from the appellant's side very vague. This round is very intriguing, as it involved judges questioning the speaker's faith in his own conscience. He further ticked off the judges for cutting them off inbetween.

2:10 pm 

NLU Delhi v. GLC Thrissur - Team from National Law University, Delhi looked  well prepared. This match-up is delving into matters related to arbitration  Judge is pressing the respondents  to prove the validity of the arbitration agreement. 

TNNLS v. HNLU- In consonance with the general trend across court rooms, speaker 1 was interrogated on the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It is evident that the judges would appreciate more engagement from the speaker. The judges disregarded the submissions of speaker 2 saying that there was no prima facie case established.

2:14 pm 

NLUJAA V. RMLNLU- This round has concluded as planned, with the rebuttals going smoothly, with no extensions granted

NUALS v. NUSRL, Ranchi- Speaker 2's turn from the petitioner's side has come. However, the judges do not seem to satisfied by his arguments. Extensive references are being made to recent landmark judgments.

School of DAVV vs. NLU O -  The respondents have submitted the rebuttals .  It was a successful and satisfactory round of mooting . 

2:19 pm 

ILS v. RGNUL -  Speaker 2 from the petitioners side is presenting his case while Speaker 1 performance was satisfactory as the judges looked happy with the arguments advanced.

2:24 pm

Christ v. GLC, Mumbai- Speaker 1 had a splendid start, citing all relevant provisions. Judges are taking a keen interest in clarifying the accuracy of cases cited. As the round progresses, she gets more aggressive in her approach. This seems to be a very engaging round. Speaker 2 is also able to deal with the pressure when the judges scrutinize of her authorities and present several hypothetical questions.

2:26 pm 

Nirma University v. JGLS- This round is proving to be one with quality mooters. Speaker 1 from the respondent's side is very confident, despite being under fire. He does, however, lack authorities, much to the displeasure of the judges. There was a slight scuffle where speaker 1 wasn't retiring when asked to. After this concluded, Speaker 2 from the respondent's side took to the floor. His points were not able to meet the standards of the judges

Balaji Law College v. Chottanagpur Law College- Speaker 1 from appellant side is unable to put forth relevant submissions when questioned on the crux of the subject matter in dispute. Judges were very strict with speaker 2 when he wrongly stated certain facts.

2:32 pm  

Amity Law School- I v. Symbiosis Pune- The judges asked Speaker 1 to present facts and answer questions relating to creditors. However, the speaker is unable to persuade the judges with his arguments.

NUALS v. NUSRL, Ranchi- from the respondent's side, Speaker 1 is being questioned about the vey existence of the company in the problem. The judges are reacting negatively. This round is proving to be extremely gruelling.

2:42

Harisingh Gaur University Sagar vs  Sastra University - This round has not been particularly remarkable with no extraordinary developments. However, the parties are making coherent arguments.

NUALS v. NUSRL, Ranchi- The round has concluded after a swift, but unsatisfactory session of rebuttals.

2:47

ILS v. RGNUL  - Abuse of dominance essentials are being stressed upon in this round. The respondents contend that abuse of dominance has happened as could deduced from the facts of the case. 

NUJS v. Pravin Gandhi Law College- In this round, speaker 2 and the judge had a difference of opinions regarding the role of the Competition Commission of India. She seemed rather evasive and the judges were not satisfied.

Harisingh Gaur University Sagar v.  Sastra University- Speaker 2 from the respondents side is presenting arguments backed by sufficient authority . The judges seem pleased .

2:52 pm

UPES v. GNLU- After heated argumentation by the appellants, the atmosphere is now calm. The judges listen to the respondents' submissions carefully and seem convinced. Speaker 2 remains confident and is able to persuade the judges of her case with ease.

2:59 pm

Amity Law School- II v. NLSIU- The respondents were asked to answer questions relating to the purpose of arbitration clause and the intention of parties to arbitrate. Speaker 2 seems confident and versatile as the judges look convinced

3:03 pm 

NLU Delhi vs. GLC Thrissur -  After an intense round of questions and answers, this match- up has concluded. NLU Delhi has put up a strong case. 

NUJS v. Pravin Gandhi Law College- This was a very theoretical session where speaker 1 from the respondent's side was questioned on the difference between creditors and lenders. He was given an extension.

ILS v. RGNUL  - The respondents exceeded their time limit by 11 minutes . The judges have ordered them to sum up their arguments.

3:12 pm

Amity law School- I v. Symbiosis Pune- Speaker 2 submitted the provisions of the Competition Act with respect to abuse of dominant position. The judges asked speaker 1 from the respondent side questions pertaining to the evidentiary aspects of the problem and the enforcement of the arbitration, but they don't seem too satisfied with the responses. Speaker 2 was thoroughly interrogated and the round seemed to get increasingly tense.

3:18 pm 

Balaji Law College v. Chottanagpur Law College- Speaker 1 is confident until the judges tell him to refrain from referring to Companies Act 1956. He tackles the issue and moves on to further issues. The round continues to progress in an ordinary manner.

NUJS v. Pravin Gandhi Law College- The second speaker from the respondent's side was left very hassled by the end of the round and took too long to answer certain questions. No rebuttals were granted. 

3: 28 pm 

Christ v. GLC- The judges are very particular about the legal terminology used by the respondents. Speaker 1 is constantly cross- questioned but judges and the speaker seem to be going off at different tangents due to a misunderstanding of the questions by the speaker. The judges style of questioning is different for Speaker 2, who is also asked to provide the years in which the cited judgments were passed.

Harisingh Gaur University Sagar v.  Sastra University- After a detailed discussion on IPR and arbitration issues, the judges have left the court and the round has concluded. 

TNNLS v. HNLU- Speaker 1 from the respondent side had to mainly argue the issue relating to scheme of arrangement under the Companies Act. The round seemed to be going well, until the judges noticed contradictory clauses in the respondents' compendium. Speaker 2 was able to salvage the situation with her knowledge of the law and illustrative argumentation.

The Second Preliminary Rounds are finally over. Its finally time for the media committe to go and have lunch. 

Breaks!!

Attention everyone, the list of breaking teams has been announced by our tireless tabbing committee. They are as follows, in no particular order:

• National Law University- Odisha     
• Symbiosis, Pune
• Hidayatullah National Law Institute University
• Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University
• Sastra University
• Indian Law School, Pune
• National Law School of India University
• Government Law College, Mumbai
• Jindal Global Law School
• School of Law, Christ University
• Gandhinagar National Law University
• Institute of Law, Nirma University
• National University of Study and Research of law, Ranchi
• Amity Law School- I
• National Law University, Delhi
• West Bengal National University of Juridical sciences

Congratulations to all breaking teams. Your hard work, oratory skills, quick thinking and research has begun to pay off. But remember, the best is yet to come. In a few minutes, the Octa-Finals shall commence. Stay tuned for live updates!

5: 27 pm

Here are the match-ups . Our team would be reporting you live action from every courtroom .

NLU-0 v. Symbiosis Pune 

Speaker 1 from the Appellants side has been asked to directly come to the issues. It seems like judges are well versed with the factual intricacies of the moot problem after having judged two rounds through the course of the day.  Speaker 1 from NLU-O is not exhibiting even a speck of hesitation and is tackling every question with grace and confidence. 

Speaker 2 from the appellants side is fairing better in the octa-finals. The preliminary rounds seem to have help him find trust in what he is speaking. While Speaker 1 dealt with the first issue, Speaker 2 is dealing with the second and third issue. He has been granted  extra time. 

The first speaker from the respondent side is now presenting his case. However, he has been asked to stop while the judges are going through the memorial of the respondents.  The judges are not happy with the interpretation of law from the respondents side . However, it is unknown if the judges are actually unhappy or are only  trying to test the knowledge of the participant. 

Looks like Speaker 1 from the Respondents side is building up a strong case now as the judges seem to agree with what he is arguing. Its looks like he knows the authorities well.  He has been asked to move on to the next issue. Speaker 2 does not seem to have nerves as strong as Speaker 1 from his side as he fumbles and makes it very explicit that he is nervous as the stakes have increased . The Speaker is being grilled on the issue of abuse of dominance. 

HNLU v. RMLNLU

SASTRA UNIVERSITY v. ILS PUNE

After preliminary issues of jurisdiction have been resolved, Speaker 1 from the side of the Appellant had to answer a lot o questions regarding the basics, such as the difference between creditors and lenders, and conceptual questions about arbitration. As the rounds progress, the problem is examined in more detail and the compendium gets put to better use. Even intricate definitions in the CPC are being spoken of. However, the judge often interrupts the speaker with supervening points. Despite this, the authorities the speaker presented to resolve such doubts satisfied the judges. Speaker 1 from the Appellant’s side’s confidence is very commendable. After this, issues about libel and remedies for the same are being debated. Finally, the second issue is broached. Cross-questioning in the octas is twice as intense as the prelims. However, after meandering around jurisdiction again, all the time and the extension lapsed and the first speaker from the Appellant’s side was obligated to conclude.

Speaker 2 from the side of the appellants has now approached the podium. He was cross-quested thoroughly about the definition and elements of an FIR. This speaker’s confidence is slowly waning, despite a soundness of content. Again, jurisdiction becomes a factor. Allegations of baseless charges were leveled against the speaker by the judges. The judges are also a little displeased by the lack of judicial precedent cited in the memo. The speaker then broaches the IPR issue. An integral precedent stated by the speaker during his oral arguments was not present in either the memo or the compendium.

The first speaker from the respondent’s side was called to the floor.He is concise and there is not much to be said on the side of the cons towards the beginning. His first issue proceeds as such. However, there was a lot of intensity surrounding the second issue, where both the speaker and the judge kept cutting each other off at crucial points. There is a tone of evasiveness in the arguments, according to the judges. The second speaker from the respondent’s side was thoroughly grilled. The researcher was an integral support system. The first point of contention that was peacefully tided over was that of arbitration clauses. The speaker knew her memp like the back of her hand, a rarity this time! This speaker subsequently addressed all the pertinent issues and the judges did not have too much of an issue. The rebuttals were granted to both sides. Thus, the round was concluded

NLSIU v. GLC MUMBAI

Speaker 1 from NLSIU is being grilled on the facts and even the Constitution! (Oddly enough, none of the participants in the court room had a copy of the Constitution…) Judges are grilling the second speaker on his submissions. He is confident, but the judges don’t seem to budge. They continue questioning him on his authorities. However, he fumbled towards the end while answering questions on arbitration.

The first speaker from GLC starts well but invites a catena of questions by mentioning a landmark judgment on arbitration. Speaker 2 on the other hand was primarily interrogated on the basics of arbitration and concepts like prospective and retrospective laws. Judges do not appear convinced by an argument on foreign awards. The speaker is continuously cross questioned throughout the submissions. The round finally ends with some light comments by the judges that relaxes the tension reverberating across the court room

JGLS v. SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST UNIVERSITY, BANGALORE

The first speaker from the side of the appellant has clearly stated that he will deal with the issues of arbitration and and breach of contract. He seems to be highly confident. It seems that the teams have all decided to bring their A- Game to the post-break rounds. However, the Limitation Act seems to be an important facet of the problem as well. As the round progresses, the speaker is not able to answer a question or two about arbitral awards and the appellant’s vested interests. This displeased the judges to a certain extent. This was promulgated by the sub-issue of the recalling of schemes. The judge even criticised the drafting of the memo. The contract issue was avidly fleshed out.

Speaker 1 from the the Respondents side is calm and composed and the judges seem to have developed a like for his arguments are coherent and logical. He responded skilfully when asked about dispute resolution mechanisms.  Speaker 2 from the same side cited the Raghavan Committe report . However, the judges feel that he is giving far fetched arguments which have little relevance to the case at hand.

GNLU v. NIRMA UNIVERSITY 

The GNLU speaker 1 is calm and maintains good composure while addressing questions. The judges seem convinced as they aren’t cross questioning too much. In the end, the speaker also manages to provide a good summary of all submissions made to seal the deal. Things are going well for the second speaker as well. Speaker 1 from Nirma is confident while presenting facts and citing authorities. But, he seems confused while answering a specific question of the judges. But, judges catch the speaker on an error with the prayer and ask the respondents to take a clear stand. However, things progress and the judges seem convinced on at least two issues.

Speaker 2 is questioned on the basics with respect to CCI as well as abuse of dominant position. But the speaker argues well and remains calm and composed. The judges aren’t question much this time

NUSRL RANCHI v. AMITY LAW SCHOOL

Placing focus on factual analysis, the judges ask Speaker 1 from NUSRL to state facts that go against their case. This question throws the speaker off guard but he moves on. He answers legal questions well and manages to convince the judges. However, when an answer to his question irked the judges, he becomes slightly nervous. But, he gets back on track and manages to clarify his submissions well. Speaker 2 keeps up this pace and in fact, manages to impress our hard- to- please judges. Way to go!

The judges find a slight conflict in the arguments of Amity. The point of contention was in relation to creditors and debtors. The proceedings then turned towards jurisprudential issues as well as intellectual property rights. Scheme of arrangement in company law formed a large portion of the speaker’s submissions. However, the speaker seemed flustered on the issue of arbitration and was unable to answer the queries of the judges on a recent landmark judgment

NLU DELHI v. NUJS 

While both the teams look charged up and looking forward to move on to the next round, this one looks like one that would be ahotly contested round. Speaker 1 from the Appellants side is discussing the issue related to arbitration and the validity of the arbitration clause.  The judges seem to be strict and are demanding authority for every point that the Speaker is attempting to prove.  Not much could be gauged from the facial expression of the judges. 

Speaker 2 of the appellant’s side was commended for his ability to withstand the pressure of the questioning of the judges. He kept his cool. If anything, the judges seem dissatisfied with his inability to address the core issue at hand, the lack of an arbitration agreement.

Speaker 1 of the respondent side started off with jurisdictional issues, which he handled very smoothly. This was the first round in which the Delhi High Court rules played a large role in the arguments advanced. There was constant support meted out by the researcher for this side. Speaker 2 on the other hand was not able to answer the questions of the judge adequately, and evaded the main point of the proceeding

 QUARTER FINALS

Congratulations to the following teams that have made it to the Quarter Finals (in no particular order):

1. Nirma University

2. NLU, Delhi

3. JGLS

4. Symbiosis, Pune

5. ILS, Pune

6. GLC, Mumbai

7. HNLU

8. NUSRL, Ranchi

The Quarter Finals have finally begun. Watch this space for more updates.

Nirma University v. NLU Delhi 

The first speaker has had a difficult time answering the tough question posed the judges. The participant is being tested on his understanding of the nuances of arbitration. Speaker 2 is getting aggressive as he entered into a little disagreement with judges . The team might be marked down because of digressing from the ideal court manners. Speaker 2 is unable to find a case law in his memorial and he asks permission from the bench to take help of his researcher. Speaker 2 trying to dodge has asked the permission from the bench to move on to the next issue.

Speaker one from the respondent is being showered with questions from the very beginning. It has all come down to the basics where judges are trying to gauge if the participant while showing their advocacy skills on complex legal issues are able to still keep the fundamentals intact. The Speaker started confidently however the pressure of quarters is evident on her face. 

Speaker 2 too is having a hard time and is struggling to convince the judges. Its a crunch situation and everyone in the court room is listening attentively to every word spoken. As the stakes are increasing , its becoming more and more difficult for the participants to answer as they succumb under pressure. 

JGLS v. Symbiosis, Pune

The speakers begin quite confidently with brief submissions of facts and relevant laws. The judges constantly attempt to refute their contentions. But, they maintain their composure and continue with a steady pace. The judges calmly continue with their questions. Overall, the round went quite well for JGLS

The first speaker from the respondent side was luckily allowed to present his arguments with minimal questions from the judges. He seems extremely confident and clearly manages to get the judges to agree with his submissions. The judges towards the end objected to his argument but he managed to maintain his stance throughout and tried not to get harrowed by the questions. The judges maintain the same attitude towards speaker 2 and refrain from excessive interrogation. There is a calm atmosphere in the courtroom.

ILS Pune v. GLC Mumbai 

Speaker 1 from the side of the petitioner got off to a confident start. However, the issue of the arbitral award was soon brought up, after which matters got heated, and confused. A certain question about contracts was left open. Precedents were also contended

HNLU v. NUSRL Ranchi 

The first speaker convinces the judges on factual questions and issues relating to limitation. As in the previous rounds, this speaker was also subjected to gruelling questions on basics of arbitration law. Speaker 2 was constantly interrupted with questions relating to the most recent developments in the relevant issues. The judges seem partially persuaded but they do not question more on this and allow the speaker to move on with the submissions. However, the judges seemed more convinced with the submissions of speaker 1.

Speaker 1 from Respondent side is able to answer questions satisfactorily. Judges seem convinced but are reluctant to cross question every submission since they are strictly complying with the time limit. Speaker 2 is asked detailed questions relating to competition act.

Attention everyone! The results of the quarter-finals are out! The teams that have qualified for the semis are:

1. NLU-D

2. Symbiosis, Pune

3. HNLU, Raipur

4. ILS, Pune

Congratulations to all the teams. More updates regarding the round are due the next morning.

Good night for now. :)

SEMI FINALS

Good Morning everyone! Its a beatiful day that began with slight rains but nothing can dampen the moods of the teams today! They are all set and determined to win.

9.30 a.m

The rounds have begun. Kudos to the Moot Court Association for their puncuality. 

9.45 a.m

ILS, PUNE v. SYMBIOSIS, PUNE

Speaker 1 from ILS starts off by defining the relevant terms and providing sufficient reasoning for his arguments. The judges refrain from excessive scrutiny of every argument. The judges continue with their routine questions regarding consensus ad idem and the provisions of Companies Act. They seem satisfied with the answers of the speaker.

Speaker 2 was questioned on the principles of natural justice but now, seems confused while answering questions related to CCI. He tries his best to tackle the various questions posed by each judge. But, they don't seem too convinced. 

All speakers in this court room are guys and this is probably the only time when one can witness such a polite fight among Pune boys! 

Speaker1 from Symbiosis starts off by rebutting the submissions made by the other side. This is an interesting style of argumentation that could probably make his arguments more convincing. But, will the judges fall for such clever tactics? They ask him questions on fraud and arbitration and he continues submitting case laws to prove his point. The judges carefully scrutinize the cases too. The Researcher smiles knowingly as the speaker answers these questions well.

Speaker 2 was not very animated when he began but eventually picked up his pace. He seemed to get slightly unnerved when several questions on competition law were thrown his way. The judges then ask very few questions and allow the speaker to make his submissions. They did accuse him of trying to mislead the court but he managed to speak his way out of it.

HNLU v. NLU-D

The entire court room has an extremely intense atmosphere. Speaker 1 starts well and looks prepared to answer any question thrown by the judges. The Consortium of creditors is a primary issue in contention. The speaker discusses the interests of the parties during the merger in a coherent and persuasive manner. Judges seem satisfied.

Speaker 2 has begun making submissions and the judges nitpick on every landmark case cited. The speaker doesn't seem as assertive as his co- counsel evident from his repeated page turning and reference to his prepared material. The judges on the hand know the field like the back of their hand and are prepared to engage in a battle of wits! The speaker finally argues the issue on abuse of dominant position well, before resting his case. The judges wouldn't let him go easily and even at the tail end, managed to ask several questions on the appellant's prayer.

The Respondents have begun with their submissions. Speaker 1 spends quite some time with initial formalities before beginning with her actual submissions. Full points for court room manner! But, hope this doesn't eat up too much of her speaking time. She argues well on jurisdiction and clubbing, and is definitely able to deal with the pressure. But, the judges know the facts too well for the speakers' liking. The speaker manages to submit authorities for everything she submits and her assertive attitude helps in proving her point well. However, she had to hurry up with the last submissions. Guess time management did become a hurdle.

Speaker 2 is allowed to make all her submissions without much interruption from the judges. They do interrogate her on bad faith litligation in relation to IPR. But, the speaker was ready to deal with this. This only all- girls team in the semi finals put up a good show today. Girl Power!!

11.15 a.m

Both rounds are officially over. There's a nail biting silence everywhere as the wait for the results continue.

The Results are out! The Finalists for the 5th NLIU- Juris Corp National Corporate Law Moot Court Competition 2014 are:

• ILS PUNE
• HNLU

FINALS- HNLU v. ILS

This round is to be judged by Hon'ble mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik, former Supreme Court judge, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda, Supreme Court judge, Mr. Mustafa Motiwala, Senior Partner, Juris Corp Advocates and Solicitors, Mr. Sandeep Mahapatra, Partner, Juris Corp Advocates and Solicitors and Prof. Dr. S. Surya Prakash, Faculty, NLIU.

12.00 p.m

The Final round has begun. The atmosphere in the NLIU auditorium is electric. 

12:07

Speaker 1 from the appellants' side has reached the podium. His facts are summarised. His issues are stated. He is confident, yet a subtle aura of nervousness surrounds him, as is natural, considering the prestigiousness of making the finals of this moot. 

12:08

The judges start asking questions about FEMA. They seem to be answered adequately well. Soon, the nervousness heightens. But his time runs out and he is granted an extension.

12:09

She is questioned about foreign arbitral awards, and answers these questions with valid precedents. Former Justice Shri A.K. Patnaik delved into this issue. The validity of an award passed in Hong Kong was tabled for discussion. His extended time has run out.

 12:16

Speaker 2 from the appellants' side graces the floor.

12:20

The main issue she starts off with is the breach of contract. The judges are cross-questioning her about them rather thoroughly.

12:21

This girls v. boys match up is proving to be very interesting. The second speaker is proving her mettle, despite the pressure exerted by the bench, specifically Former Justice Shri. A.K. Patnaik.

12:25

The second speaker from HNLU is a very eloquent counsel. Her legal accumen and delivery both seem very sound. She manages to cover her issues and maintain her flow.

12:28

Second speaker's time has run out, but she is granted an extension, where she wraps up all loose ends. The prayer is submitted before the judges. 

12:30

Speaker 1 from the respondents' side has commenced his delivery. His issues have been stated, and the formalities are wrapped up.

12:35

He picks up the first issue, and the prevelant theme of arbitration is jumped into, headfirst. This was dealt with reasonably well, with the speaker provided adequate precedents and legislative standpoints.

12:40

He is then made to flesh out the consortium of creditors issue as well.

12:42:

His pace is steady, and words are measured. He navigates the cross-questioning in a skilled manner.

12:45

Speaker 1's time has lapsed and Speaker 2 from the respondents' side takes the floor

12:50

The second speaker is at a loss for words when asked for authorities proving the existence of an arbitration agreement in the present scenario.

12:53

The intricacies of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the need for the express mention of the term "arbitration" in the agreement are being debated intensely. Speaker is trying his best to hold his own against the bench, but the nervousness might get the better of him.

12:57

He is questioned about the concept of intention of parties to arbitrate, both theoretically and in relation to the problem. The judges are thoroughly grilling this speaker.

13:00

His time runs out in the process.

13:03

The rebuttals have begun. Will they make a difference? Especially in such a a close, competitive round?

13:05

The Appellants manage to establish a certain aspect of his argument, and clarify some doubts regarding it. Guess rebuttals have a legitimate value after all!

1.15

The Finals are finally over. Hats off to the teams that braved through all the questions throughout the competition. 

We will be up with the results soon. The Valedictory Ceremony will commence shortly.

Dear folks, we are very proud to announce that after two days of splendid mooting and impeccable show of advocacy skills, the team that stood out and is the winner of the 5th NLIU-Juris National Corporate Moot Court Competition is ILS Pune. The trio- Yash Bansal, Mohith Gauri and Vivek Narayan from ILS truly deserved to win!

Vatsla Bhardwaj, Akshata Singh and Deergha Airen from HNLU have finished as Runners Up after the fabulous show of mooting skills they displayed today!

The winners of other prestigious awards are:

Best Researcher -Mounica Kasturi (Symbiosis Pune)

Best Speaker- Yash Bansal (ILS Pune)

Best Memorial - NUSRL Ranchi

Congratulations to the Winners!!

The Valedictory ceremony  commenced with floral welcome of Chief Guest Hon'ble Justice Mr. Gowda, sitting judge, Supreme Court and the Guest of Honour  former judge of Supreme Court Hon'ble Justice  Mr. A.K. Patnaik, Prof S.S. Singh , Director of National Law Institute University  congratulated the participants for their hard work and persisitence. Juris Corp was represented by Senior partner by Mustafa Motilal who talked about the association of Juris Corp with NLIU in organizing the prestigious tournament.The guest of honour spoke on the importance of mooting in the life of law student. He inspired the students by sharing with them his experiences in the courtroom.  The Chief Guest on the occassion congratulated the winners and emphasised on the importance of hard work in an advocate's life.  The vote of thanks was given by the MCA co-convener Shashwat Sharma.

Our efficient Moot Court Association has worked tirelessly for this event. Their efforts surely paid off!

We'll be back next year. This is the media committe signing off. Thank you.

Vaishali Vinod 

Anubhav Raj Shekhar

Rajeswari Mukherjee