•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

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

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences
An estimated 20-minute read
 Email  Facebook  Tweet  Linked-in

 

Greetings! everyone and welcome to the 6th edition of the NLIU - Juris Corp National Corporate Law Moot Court Competition 2015 which is to be held from 16th-18th, October 2015. 

The Moot problem this year, like its previous editions is based on Corporate Laws. This year's edition shall have 18 top law schools battle it out for glory. 

The list of participating Universities are:

BILS, Bangalore

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PATNA

GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, MUMBAI

GUJARAT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, GANDHINAGAR

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, RAIPUR

JINDAL GLOBAL LAW SCHOOL, SONEPAT

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH, HYDERABAD

NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY, BANGALORE

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, ASSAM

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, ODISHA

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES, KOCHI

RAJEEV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PATIALA

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

SASTRA UNIVERSITY

SEEDLING SCHOOL OF LAW, JAIPUR

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA 

 

Good morning!

We are off with the proceedings for today. The preliminary round 1 has started and the matchups are as follows

NUALS Kochi vs GLC Mumbai

NLU Orissa vs NLIU Swing Team

CNLU vs NALSAR

RGNUL vs NLU Assam

Symbiosis Pune vs Sastra University

HNLU vs Symbiosis Noida

JGLS vs Seedling Jaipur

RMLNLU vs NLUJ

BILS Bangalore vs GNLU

 

Courtroom 1

NUALS vs GLC

Judges: Sameer Sah and Suditi Surana

The first prelim round is underway and speaker 1 from the petitioner side is presenting her case. She is calm and composed and directs the attention of the judges regularly to the written submissions. The judges seem convinced with her arguments.
And the speaker has successfully completed her submissions before time.

Courtroom 6 

HNLU Vs Symbiosis Noida

  The petitioner speaker 1 from HNLU  has started pleading. Judge mr Jubin Prasad is asking whether this petition is allowed in Supreme Court or not?
 The judges also asked  the pet to present two facts which can go against his pleading

Courtroom 4 

RGNUL vs NLU Assam

Judges: Divyanshu Rai and Kanu Agrawal

b2ap3_thumbnail_courtroom-4.jpg

The round is off to an exciting start. The first speaker from the petitioners side has stepped up to the podium with a powerful  start. He seems to meeting the judges' questions with confidence and determination, answering them quickly and effortlessly.

Courtroom 6 

HNLU vs Symbiosis Noida

The judges are asking the petitioner to mention the procedure that should be followed in his pleading. They are also grilling  the petitioner  on every argument put forward by him.

Courtroom 9 BILS Bangalore vs GNLU

Judges: Ms Nidhi Khare and Vipul Agarwal

The rounds began at 10:30. Speaker 1 from the petitioner side before beginning with the issues was asked by the judges to bring into light the facts against them. The speaker came up with some real witty replies but was grilled on the maintainability of the petition itself.

The speaker seemed to have problems satisfying the judges questions but her confidence was praiseworthy.

b2ap3_thumbnail_courtroom-9.jpgb2ap3_thumbnail_courtroom-91.jpgb2ap3_thumbnail_courtroom-92.jpgb2ap3_thumbnail_courtroom-93.jpg

 

Courtroom 4

RGNUL vs NLU Assam

In a predictable turn of events, the judges have finally worn down the speaker,  who is having a tough time answering their questions.

Courtroom 3

CNLU vs NALSAR

Judges - Kapil Duggal and Gaurav Mishra

the round has started.

Ap. Side
Speaker 1-has started and the judges have already started asking  questions which are confusing them, they are not satisfied with the contentions of the speaker regarding overlapping of the issues, Judges seem quite irritated with the arguments of the speaker and the speaker according to the judges wass quite confused regarding the procedure speaker  still tried her best to answer the questions satisfactorily. Judges were  not happy with the fact that there is no extra copy of the compendium for the judges however, the judges granted an extension to the speaker, judges feel that there is no reasoning behind the arguments of the speaker, judges seem angry as they are not satisfied with the way a case law regarding article 14 has been mentioned in the memorial, judges in between asked a question to the respondents and were angry  that they are not listening to them Judges are grilling the speaker on facts, the speaker seemed too nervous to understand the questions, judges didn't seem satisfied with the answers

Courtroom 6

HNLU Vs Symbiosis Noida 

The petitioner speaker 1 is facing a barrage of questions from the judges. The Judges pointed out to the petitioners that no proper procedure was followed in filing the Writ Petition which left the Petitioner perplexed

Courtroom 9 

BILS vs GNLU

Speaker 2 had to fill in the loopholes of Speaker 1 which didn't go very well. The speaker had problems understanding the questions. Major portion of the time allotted to Speaker 2 was used by the judges. Expression of the judges resembled that of a teacher handling primary class students.

Courtroom 3

CNLU vs NALSAR

Petitioner  speaker seems quite confused regarding the facts, judges asked the speaker to move on to second issue as they aren't satisfied with the arguments, speaker to the judges' amazement is not even aware of the basic facts of the issue, judges have made even the researcher and the respondents quite nervous by asking questions, judges provided speaker 2 also with an extension

Courtroom 9

BILS vs GNLU

Speaker 1 from the respondent side was convincing but the judges managed to give him ample reasons to stammer. The judges grilled the Speaker on the issue of investment scheme and evidence supporting the same. The speaker was not well verse with the recent judgement on the issue asked by the judges.

Courtroom 4

RGNUL Vs NLU Assam

The first speaker has ended his argument, and the second speaker has come to the podium. The judges seemed unimpressed by her arguments. Someone was heard passing a remark "Is she a steak? cause she is surely getting grilled"

b2ap3_thumbnail_cr-4.jpg

The judges have asked the second speaker to recite the prayer without referring to her memo, and she's done it without a hitch, impressively. With that, the petitioners' side have come to a close.

Court room 2

Judges: Kanishk Thakur and Shivendu Joshi.

NLU Orissa vs NLIU Swing Team

Appellant side Speaker 1 The speaker started calmly but as time went on started getting nervous. The judges were asking basic questions regarding common law and the likes. The speaker couldn't give clear answers to that. The judge asked her to move on to the next issue since nothing she said was making any sense to them. 3 minutes into talking about issue 2 speaker went back to talking about Issue 1 and was asked by the judges to move to the second issue. The speaker was given an extension of time even after which she couldn't conclude her arguments. Judges had to ask her to give legal backing rather than emotional arguments. Speaker 1 was finally cut short and asked to conclude her arguments. 

Courtroom 6

HNLU Vs Symbiosis Noida

The Petitioner speaker 2 fumbled in the beginning and the judges remarked that the counsels for the petitioners have ended up putting different contentions. The Petitioner speaker 2 is having difficulty answering questions. The judges grilled the petitioners for challenging the constitutional validity of the draft notifications which could not be done. The petioner speaker 2 could not address the questions and the judges seemed dissatisfied

Courtroom 1

NUALS vs GLC Mumbai

The 2nd speaker from the petitioner  has piqued the interest of the judges with his arguments entailing a series of ques. The speaker tried to give exanple of Satyam scam but the judges do not seem convinced. The speaker wass stuck on the question as to how the validity of draft constitution be challenged?

Courtroom 2

NLU Orissa vs NLIU Swing team

Speaker 2 Petitioner

There was certain confusion regarding the issues speaker 2 will deal with.  The Judges  asked speaker 2 whether he was accepting that his co counsel was incompetent and couldn't prove her point. The judge got irritated and asked him whether they should start afresh with him asking him to put up all the issues.
The questions asked by the judges are leaving Speaker 2 sweating and making him extremely nervous making him fumble while putting up the arguments. The judges are repeatedly telling the speakers that  the arguments have more of an emotional base reminding them that they need legal backing. The speaker was asked to come to the second argument since the time was already up. The judges didn't seem to be convinced with the argument. Speaker 2 was finally asked to conclude

Courtroom 3

CNLU vs NALSAR

Speaker 2 petitioner

Speaker seems quite confused regarding the facts, judges asked the speaker to move on to second issue as they aren't satisfied with the arguments, speaker to the judges' amazement was not even aware of the basic facts of the issue thejudges have made even the researcher and the respondents quite nervous by asking questions, judges gave speaker 2  an extension too.

Courtroom 1

NUALS vs GLC Mumbai

Speaker 1 Respondent

The 1st speaker from the respondant moved directly to the arguments. He tried to estb that Art 396 gives the power to issue draft notification.He argued that the draft notif. is just a precautionary step and the fundamental right under A 19 (1) (g) is not violated.The judges  cornered the speaker on the issue of draft notif and public interest.
The judges asked the speaker for case laws but the speaker is not aware of  the issuance of draft notif as a precautionary step.

Courtroom 2

NLU Orissa vs NLIU Swing team

Respondent Speaker 1
Speaker 1 was asked to directly move to the issues, speaker 1 seemed to be confident even though he is being grilled by the judges.
However, speaker 1 finished his arguments with 3 minutes still left. (wow!)
The speaker concluded stating that if the judges were convinced his co cousel would deal with the next issue to which the judges replied saying they werent convinced (lol) but his co cousel could start.

Courtroom 3

CNLU vs NALSAR

Respondent Speaker 1

Judges got angry with the speaker's inappropriate way of addressing them, judges told the counsel to go and sit as she doesn't know the issues but to her request allowed her to speak again. Judges are grilling the speaker as the arguments are not appropriate according to the judges, speaker is making contradictory arguments and is not giving a proper legal backing to her arguments

Courtroom 4

RGNUL vs NLU Assam

Respndent speaker 1

The first speaker from the Resondent side has started off.

Meanwhile we have 2 of our most legendary mooters(lolwut?) Shivansh Soni and Harsh Mishra in the courtroom. Even the judges seem intimidated by their presence. We hope the lords have mercy on everyone.

Courtroom 6

HNLU vs Symbiosis Noida

Respondent Speaker 2

The speaker is fumbling under a barrage of questions. An exasperated judge at one point exclaims "can't you even do simple maths?"

Courtroom 3

CNLU vs NALSAR

Respondent Speaker 2

Its the same case with the speaker 2 as his predecessor, judges are not satisfied with his arguments either . Judges have a 'what's going on' expression on their faces as the speaker is defending a provision that is againt public interest

 

Preliminary Round 1 has ended and we now begin with Round 2 

The matchups are as follows

Nlu Assam vs Symbiosis Pune

NALSAR vs JGLS

NLIU Swing vs RMLNLU

GLC Mumbai vs BILS Bangalore

GNLU vs NUALS

NLU Jodhpur vs NLU Orissa

Symbiosis Noida vs RGNUL

Seedling Jaipur vs CNLU

Sastra University vs HNLU

Courtroom 1

NLIU Swing Team vs RMLNLU

Judges: Suditi Surana and Sameer Sah

The second prelim round has begun. The speaker 1 from the petitioner side is putting forth his arguments with great conviction. His basic arguments are that corporate veil cannot be lifted on two separate entities and that there is no evidence of fraud. The speaker brilliantly answers all the ques of the judges and also cites case laws for his arguments.

Courtroom 8

Seedling vs CNLU

Petitioner Speaker 1 was asked as to how the speaker would justify the non application of doctrine of seperate legal entity to which the speaker replied by citing a case law. 

Courtroom 9 

Sastra University vs HNLU

Judges: Nidhi Khare and Vipul Agarwal

Speaker 1 from the petitioner's side was questioned on the maintainability of the petition. The speaker moved on swiftly barring minor interruptions. Public interest and fundamentals of The Constitution of India were frequently asked. The speaker was able to convince the judges with her arguments.

Courtroom 5

NLU Jodhpur vs NLU Orissa

Speaker 1 is engaged in a dialogue with the judges. Some of the questions however leaves him stumped.

Courtroom 2

Judges: Kanishk Thakur and Shivendu Joshi

NALSAR vs JGLS

Speaker 1 Petitioner

The speaker seems pretty confident and answered the questions put forth by the judges. The judges seemed convinced. She finished putting forth her arguments well in time.

Courtroom 5

GNLU vs NUALS

Petitioner speaker 1 is enquired about civil suit and what is a civil suit. The petitioner speaker is not able to explain it correctly. He also goes on to explain the rights in a debenture but is not able to convince the judges completely. 

Courtroom 3

NLIU Swing vs RMLNLU

Petitioner Speaker 2

The second speaker is not able to lay down a clear structure of arguments. He gets nervous and the judges ask him to take a minute to calm down. The speaker seems underconfident however, he continues with his arguments, citing cases and legal provisions. The speaker wrapped up his submissions after seeking an extension of 1 minute.

Courtroom1 

NLU Assam vs Symbiosis Pune

Petitioner Speaker 2

Judges are asking questions on facts. Speaker is quite confident about his answer and is ready to put 7 marks at stake. Judges are not satisfied with the case law mentioned by the speaker as the case law is not related to the given facts

Courtroom 9

Sastra University vs HNLU

Speaker 2 from the petitioner's side firmly argued on issue 2. The speaker agreed to his company's liability. Granted extension of time to prove the non existence of fraud. The speaker seemed a little confused on his stand.

Courtroom 2 

Nalsar vs JGLS 

The speaker 2 started his argument and was bombarded with questions making his extremely nervous leading to him stammering through the first few questions. After a few minutes, the speaker was able to calm down and think logically and be able to answer the questions after putting some thought. Though the judges didn't seem convinced. Appellant just demanded dismissal.

Courtroom 5

GNLU vs NUALS

Speaker 2 

Petitioner

The speaker 2 from the petitioners was questioned on shareholders and public interest. The petitioner speaker failed to answer questions from his own memorial which left the judges dissapointed. The speaker in addition to that seemed to be out of words 5 minutes before his time and the judges dont seem to be imprressed. 

Courtroom 3

NLIU Swing vs RMLNLU

The respondants side have started with their submissions. The first speaker moves on to his arguments. The judges try to corner him with ques but he stands firmly on his point. The speaker says that the apprehension of the petitioner is unreasonable.  The speaker seems to have a good rapport going on with the judges and answers the questions with composure

Speaker 2 deals with the issue of amalgation and public interest. He tries to establish how the scheme is fraudulent. The judges pose a series of ques to the speaker as to how Mojo Ltd had a controlling position in Dreams Ltd. The respondants fail to give a satisfactory answer to how amalgamation is a solution in the instant factual matrix?

Courtroom 1 

NLU Assam vs Symbiosis Pune

Speaker 1

The speaker is quite nervous after seeing the way judges grilled the other side. Judges are shocked at the arguments made by the speaker
There is a dispute regarding order 1 rule 10 cpc . Judges are not satisfied with the speaker's arguments

Speaker 2

Speaker got confused with the facts and wasn't able to answer the question . Judges aren't satisfied with his response
Judges moved on to the next issue without letting the speaker complete his arguments on the ongoing issue.

SASTRA vs HNLU

Speaker 1 from the  respondents side succumbed to the opening questions of the judges but picked up rather bravely with her arguments. The speaker winded up her arguments before time and left the judges rather not convinced.

Speaker 2 of the respondents side started  with a comparatively smooth start but ended up stumbling. The researcher of the opposite team seemed surprisingly restless.

NALSAR vs JGLS

Respondents

Speaker 1 started on a nervous note but was able to answer the questions and the judges seemed convinced.

Speaker 2 initially started on a confused note but managed to hold his own and was able to convince the judges and answer the questions fairly.

GNLU vs NUALS

Respondent

The speaker 1 seems to be a bit confused as she is not able to answer the questions confidently.She cited cases from her memorial but the counter questions from the judges left her in a fix.

Speaker 2 seems to have struck a right cord with the judges as they seem convinced and dont interrupt him much. The judges seem impressed and he seems to have made  up for his co counsel's mistakes.  However his request for extra time is rejected

We are done with the Preliminary Round 2 and we shall be shortly coming back with the list of teams who have broken to the quartes!

 We have our quarters break!

The matchups for the quarters are as follows

JGLS vs RGNUL

NUALS vs RMLNLU

NLU Orissa vs CNLU

Symbiosis Pune vs Symbiosis Noida

JGLS vs RGNUL

Speaker 1 for petitioners cited various draft notifications. The judges ask the  speaker whether the draft notifications have the force of law

CNLU v NLU Orissa

After getting confused because of a few questions asked by the judges, changed her stand leading to the judge asking her whether she was going against her client.
The judges further went on to ask the speaker to refrain from questioning the courts intention.The speaker still tries to answer the questions calmly but the judges don't seem too convinced. The counsel is cut short in the middle of her sentence and asked to go back.

NUALS vs RMLNLU

Speaker 1 was asked to point out some peculiar facts of the case. The speaker seemed confident answering questions on fraud and arbitration clause. Speaker 1 from the petitioner side was granted 5 minute extension which was followed by a rigours session of questioning on the issue of submission to  the proceedings of the arbitration as agreed upon or before this court.

CNLU vs NLU Orissa

Petitioner Speaker 2
The speaker started off very confidently but eventually could not answer the questions and was reminded by the judges the basic fact of the case.
The judges eventually got annoyed and the speaker was asked to sum up and move on to the next issue.
The speaker was unable to answer a few questions and was asked to go back after summing up.

We have the matchups for the Semi Finals

Symbiosis Pune vs NLU Orissa

JGLS vs RMLNLU

JGLS vs RMLNLU

Petitioner Speaker 1

Speaker 1 was extremely confident and was able to answer the questions and explain to the judges why she was stating a few point which didnt seem relevant to the judges initially. She was prompt in answering the questions and was able to convince the judges to an extent. The court room got a little heated up when the speaker refused to budge from a point until she had completely comvinced the judges.The speaker asked for an extension of time but it was politely refused by the judges and the speaker was asked to go back.

Petitioner Speaker 2

The mannerism of the speaker left a good impression on the judges initially but he accidently cut a judge while speaking leading to the judge taking offence.
The arguments put up by the speaker were a little factual flawed and had to be corrected by the judges. After putting forth the arguments the judges seemed a little convinced but due to lack of time the speaker could not convince the judges completely. The speaker was asked to go back as soon as the time was up.

 Respondent Side Speaker 1

The speaker was extremely nervous and was unable to think straight. Being so nervous hampered his thinking and the questions asked by the judges left him dumbfounded and whatever little he did answer he was unable to convince the judges completely. He asked for a 30 second extension which was denied giving the reason that the extension wasn't allowed to the appellants either.

Respondent Side Speaker 2 . The respondent started on a very confident note and could answer the questions very well.
He managed to convince the judges to an extent but the due to lack of time could not complete his arguments and was asked to go back.

Symbiosis Noida vs NLU Orissa

Counsel 1 for petitioners are asked to state material facts of the case. The counsel began confidently attracting the bench's attention. Since the co-counsel from  petitioner's side is versed in the third issue, he is called in the middle of counsel 1's arguments to argue on the issue.

b2ap3_thumbnail_sf1.jpg

Co counsel for petitioners is having a hard time convincing the judges on his stand on public interest, after being rebuked by the judges for not following due procedure, counsel for petitioners called by the bench to address the first issue. The judges seem displeased by the petitioner's counsel arguments and the  counsel seems to struggle with the heated atmosphere of the courtroom. Counsel for petitioners stumbled on prayer for relief and succumbed to the cross questioning of the bench.

Counsel for respondents rendered speechless when asked to read in the 'withdrawal of notification' clause,moves on to her issues nervously.

 Co-counsel for respondents begins with a rather low note but gradually builds up his arguments on issue 3.

AND WE HAVE OUR FINALISTS!

its RMLNLU vs Symbiosis Law School, Noida in the final battle for glory.

Judges: Veena Sivaramakrishnan, Justice A C Gohil, Prof. S Surya Prakash, Justice D K Paliwal, Dr. Kondaiah J.

The finals are off to an exciting start, and proceedings are in full swing. The appellants' first speaker has started his arguments with fervour and confidence, but the judges are formidably hard to convince. The rapid fire questioning from the judges and the quick answers from the speaker has the audience at the edge of their seats. 

The speaker has admirably not fumbled or had difficulty facing the judges' interrogation, but the pressure grows as the five judge bench shows no sign of relenting.

The second speaker has stepped up undaunted, clarifying the first speaker's arguments to reestablish their sanctity, followed by his arguments. Following the precedent set by the first speaker, he is just as adept at answering the judges' questioning, with to the point answers accurately.The questioning has evolved into a heated debate on voting rights/one of the issues, but the speaker shows no signs of being cowed, persevering in the face of nerve wracking pressure.

The judges have flat out told the second speaker that they are not satisfied by the petitioners' arguments, and the respondents' side looks vaguely terrified at the prospect of going up next against the gunfire. The second speaker has rested his case, being denied an extension by the honorable Supreme Court.

The Respondents have begun

The speaker has begun in a calm and controlled manner, and the judges are gearing up to interrogate him (firing up the grill?).

b2ap3_thumbnail_f1.jpg

He is maintaining his demeanour despite the courtroom heating up, an admirable feat considering the difficulty of the questions posed by the five judge bench.

The judges appears to have cornered the speaker into a tight spot, and a lot depends on his handling the situation satisfactorily.

The Results of the Finals are out!

Winners of the 6th NLIU Juris Corp National Corporate Law Moot Court Competition 2015 are the trio from the Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow while Symbiosis Noida take away the Runners Up trophy.

The other citations awarded are as follows

Best Memorial:- Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala
Best Researcher:- Aditya Singh Rajput, NLUO
Best Oralist:- Anuj Bansal, RMLNLU and Puspak Chamariya, JGLS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click to show 4 comments
at your own risk
(alt+c)
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.