RESULTS

As the excitement revolves around the auditorium amongst the participants and the volunteers our Hon’ble principal declared the results of Justice P.N. Bhagwati International Moot Court.

Winners of Justice P.N. Bhagwati International Moot Court- Indian Law Society (ILS)

Runners Up Amity Law School, Noida

Best Memorial- SlS Cochin

Best speaker male- Himanshu Bagaria  (Christ Law College, Bangalore)

Best speaker female- Rujuta Bankar (DES Pune)

For National Model Directors’ Meet we have

Winners- Indian Law Society(ILS), Pune

Runners up- KIIT Orrisa

For the law quiz

Winners- V.M Salgaokar (Goa)

Runners  up – School Of Excellency (Chennai)

We once again congratulate all the participants and the winners of Lex Sollemnis  

This Blog of the Lex sollemnis was brought to by

Ishaan Mukherjee

Kritika Mahendra

Neha Kamat

Sanaja Vijh

Shruti Dutta.

Valedictory Function

2:30pm

As the finals have come to an end and our score evaluators are at work we move towards the auditorium for the Valedictory function.

As the guest of Honour we have Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasti Chelameswar, Judge, Supreme Court of India, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shri Narayan Shukla, Judge, High Court of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Bench, Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Kumar, Judge, High Court of Karnataka, Hon’ble Dr. Venkat Rao, Vice Chancellor, NLSIU, Bangalore, Hon’ble Dr. A. Lakshmikant, Vice Chancellor, CNLU Patna, Hon’ ble Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, Chairman, Bar Council of India and Hon’ble Mr Apurba Kumar Sharma, Chairman Executive Board, Bar Council of India.

The event included launch of the Legal Aid book which was followed by the release of New Law College placement brochure.

The New law College also launched their hand book on mooting namely ‘mooting mania’ in the hands of Justice Shriman Shukla. 

10.03 am

Respondent, (Amity Law School, Noida) Speaker 1 presents her arguments in a confident and composed manner. The speaker quotes Article 3 of Geneva Convention and Nicaragua Case to explain effective control test.  The speaker is sufficiently informative and her arguments are supported with relevant references. Judges exercise a very inquisitive approach towards the proceedings of the case. Time extension is voluntarily rendered by the Judges to Speaker 1.

Speaker 2 starts off on a factual note quoting Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the UN Charter. As he proceeds on to quoting Article 1 of ICCPR on Right to Self-Determination, Judges open their barrage of questions demanding references and citations to International Law. Several pieces of information are added by an alert and efficacious researcher.

Rebuttal : Applicant’s rebuttal is succinct and she is able to handle the questions posed by the Bench in a confident and proficient manner. Respondent’s rebuttal is a rather extended session as the judges seem to be eager to listen to the speaker’s contentions. Several references are being made to the compromis.

Session ends on an anticipating note, both teams are waiting for the results anxiously.

9.17 am

Complainant, (ILS, Pune) Speaker 1 starts the argument stating the facts in the memorial and making the Panel aware of the various violations as alleged by them. The speaker concludes within her time frame and is not questioned by the Panel.

Speaker 2 starts her contentions by stating 5 issues which she was going to throw light on in her arguments.  In the 4^th issue, the Panama-African case is referred to which focuses on interventions on Pro Democratic issues. As the Judges demand more clarification on the issues, the Agent moves on to the 5^th and final issue justifying the use of chemical weapons in warfare. The Agent pleads by directing the Bench to Para 31 of the compromis and held that the use of such weapons is just a step towards the protection of integrity and sovereignty of the country as the State of Murkey had deployed their additional army forces on the border. Speaker 2 concluded with the prayer.

17th March, 2013

8:45 am

Day 3 of the 'Lex Sollemnis' has finally arrived. We shall commence the final rounds of the moot court competition and the Law Quiz in just a while, so stay tuned with us.

8:30 pm

The much awaited result of the semi-final rounds have been declared. ILS, Pune and Amity Law School, Noida emerged triumphant. We'll begin with the final round of the competition tomorrow at 9:00 am.

 6:43 pm

Applicant (Amity Law School, Noida)

Speaker 1 starts off slightly nervous with a hurried delivery, referring to the concepts of International Law. Judges ask the speaker to elucidate the  Articles and Doctrines referred to.  The speculative Judges constantly grill the speaker on the UN Intervention in Fenia. Speaker clearly expresses international concern but fails to explain the Judges’ question about shared sovereignty. Judges continue their barrage of questions and the researcher seems to be on his toes. Speaker 2 takes over and is at a loss of words. The questions seem to be fact based and terminologies are being asked to be explained. Speaker does not have a definite line of thought and asks for a 2 min extension, when asked for evidence of incidental damage and due diligence in International Law.

Respondent (GLC, Mumbai)

Speaker 1 relates facts well and promptly points out the use of electronic devices by the other team. Time extension pleaded for and granted.  Points out that the MCCW binds all parties to destroy all chemical weapons, within a stipulated time. The question about the spirit of International Law it is answered well, once aided by the researcher.

Speaker 2, starts out in a nervous yet loud manner when questioned about the spirit of international law. Agent pleads ignorance and makes contradictory statements to which the Judges ask the speaker to refer to the compromis.

Rebuttal:  Applicants question facts and Security Council Protocols put forth by GLC, mainly asking for clarifications and elaborations.    

6:30 pm

Applicant (ILS, Pune), Speaker 1, starts off in a convincing manner in a soft and passive tone and talks in favor of the  Govt., quoting Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

Speaker 2 takes over and is asks not to repeat arguments but continues to answer the Panels’ questions with conviction and uses Resolution 2625 of the General Assembly and the Kosovo intervention to strengthen the argument. Judge questions the speaker about intervention of UN in Afghanistan. Speaker is unable to answer the question and gives furtherance to the argument by mentioning the Doctrine of Pro Reo and Article 51 of UN Charter.

Respondent (GLC, Mumbai)

Judge asks speaker if the current state of Government is legitimate or not. Speaker replies after a pause when aided by the researcher. Judge questions the speaker if they are an International Community or a State which is answered by citing Article 1 Para 3 of UN Charter.

Speaker 2 starts off in a loud manner, pointing to a number of cases; Judges are patient so far. Judges question how Murkey is involved in the act. Speaker quotes Art. 53 and 64 of the Geneva Convention. Judge continues to hurtle the speaker with questions who quotes  Art.  48 of the Additional Protocol of the Geneva Convention, MCCW and Art. 2 of the Treaty. The   Judges ask how they established that Fenia used chemical weapons, to which the speaker gives a befitting reply. Researcher keeps aiding in intervals. Judges ask the speaker what gave them the right, or if they admitted to sending chemical missiles in the territory. The Panel also ask if the country is democratic or unrecognized. Judges seem satisfied with this team.

 6:10 pm

We're about to move into the final segment for the day, the semi-final rounds for the Justice P.N. Bhagwati 3rd International Moot Court on Human Rights. The qualifying teams are -

School of Excellence in Law, Chennai

ILS, Pune, 

Amity Law School, Noida

GLC, Mumbai. 

It will remain to be seen who will emerge finalists in the clash of titans between ILS, Pune who'll be pitted against School of Excellence in Law, Chennai and Amity Law School, Noida, who'll be pitted against GLC, Mumbai.

4:55 pm

Court room no. 10

The Applicants (HNLU, Raipur) pointed out the facts of the memorial. The ambience of the court room turned intriguing and a time extension was pleaded for by the team.The Respondents (ULC, Bangalore) vehemently argued in front of the panel.

Although the Respondents presented the arguments in an aggressive manner, the rebuttal went on smoothly.

4:50 pm

Court room no. 11

The Applicants (SLS Cochin) were unable to give a satisfactory reply to the Judges’ questions.The Respondents (Africa Nazarene University, Nairobi) were polite and passive in their contentions.

4:45 pm

Court room no. 12,

The Applicants (Amity Law School, Lucknow) were cornered with a tricky question which tripped their confidence. The Judges stressed on being explained to, the concept of Principal of Intervention. The Respondents (Amity Law School, Noida) impressed the panel with their adroitism. conclusion of the arguments required extra time.

The rebuttal ended on a calm note.

4:40 pm

In court room no. 9 the Applicants (Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi) their initial submissions constituted the need for Government stability and politely gave their contentions justifying, the clamping of Emergency in the country. They summed up their arguments adeptly.
The Respondents (NUSRL, Ranchi) started their arguments by citing cases on provisions related to Human Right. They, factually related the provisions in accordance  to the acts committed  during the period citing relevant references from their memorial.
The Hon’ble Judges cornered the speaker on the admissibility of certain contentions. Issues pertaining to Indian and Pakistan were also taken up.
In this intense atmosphere of the court room, the issue of use of chemical warfare was also taken up citing example of what happened in Uganda.
A time out ended a hugely interesting session.

4:27pm

Court room no. 15

Complainant, (Raffles University) speaker 1 started off in a gripping manner. The panels seemed quite satisfied with the speakers' contentions . Speaker 2 took a lot of pause when cross questioned by the judge and resumed once aided by the researcher. The Respondents (Amity Law School, IP University, Delhi) Speaker 1 took brief pauses during the submissions and the arguments were basically made after thorough reference to the memorial, there was a certain level of fluctuation as far as the confidence of the mooters is concerned. The intense grilling of the Judges didn't affect the confidence of the speakers in any manner .

Rebuttal: Complainants made allegations against Respondents who effectively countered the allegations.

4:20 pm

Court room no 16.

The Applicant (Vistula University, Poland) was unable to answer the panels' questions regarding the relevant cases and citations.The Respondent(GLC,Mumbai), were confident and spoke in a high pitch yet ensured that they followed the court etiquette properly.

In the rebuttal both teams answered the questions put forward by the judges but Respondents had an upper hand. 

4:10pm

Court room no.14.

Applicant (DES, Pune), Speaker 2 was very descriptive and answered the question of the Judges very competently. The Judges were very inquisitive while speaker 1 was pleading about the bilateral treaty. Respondent (GLC Calicut), Speaker 1 stuttered a little yet he was able to answer when questioned by the panel on whether the State of Murkey had the right to interfere in the jurisdiction of Fenia. Speaker 2 argued at length but was at a loss of time when asked about the critical questions about the difference between Human Rights and Humanitarian Laws.

Rebuttal- The Applicants overpowered the Respondents were asked by the Judges to give answers to the point.

4:00 pm

Court room no. 13

Applicant, (school of law , Christ University, Bangalore) spoke well. Judges listed with poise while researcher passed additional information. Speaker 1 also asked the panel to refer to footnote no.32 which is the argument on UN charter. Panels question were answered promptly. Speaker 2 started very confidently. Panel questioned on the classic principle of jurisprudence. Judges waited placidly as the researcher passed additional information. Respondent(SKVM, Mumbai) Speaker 1 was aided by the researcher while an extension in time was asked for.Speaker 2 was baffled when questioned as to how the FFA was helping people by killing them and also what Human Rights are. Speaker 1 intervened and answered the question satisfactorily.

The Rebuttal ended on an equal note.

 4:34 pm

In court room no. 8, The Complainant (RGNUL, Patiala), speaker 1, had a smooth beginning, they effectively referred to the Nicaragua land mark judgement in relation to State of Murkey’s control over FFA. Reference to other case law - Cargo vs. Angola was made by the speaker. Judges keenly heard  the arguments and references made by the speaker. Speaker 2 related the facts of the case in accordance to the prohibition of army interference by General Assembly, 1969. Speaker 2 requested for extra time to answer the Judges’ questions and refer to the memorial. Respondent (ILS, Pune), speaker 1 was calm and composed and  referred mainly to the provisions cited in the  memorial as per the Articles of ICCPR.

Rebuttal: The rebuttal rounds were precisely conducted. Applicants wanted to engage the respondents into a questioning session but were denied to do so by the Judges. Both the teams concluded their arguments impressively and it was a neck-to-neck battle.

4:20 pm

Court room 7 – The Complainant (NLU, Jodhpur), put forth the points loud and clear and argumentation included relevant facts. The Judges seemed quite satisfied with the contentions and did not ask too many questions. However, the Applicants were able to answer confidently and elucidate the important references.  Speaker 2 looked a little nervous initially. Respondent (V.M. salgaocar College of law, Goa), Speaker 1, explained her points in an organized manner and referred to written submissions. Speaker 2 seemed to be a little low on confidence and misinterpreted the questions put up by the Judges.

Rebuttal: The rebuttal was very brief and Applicants turned out to be a more convincing party.  

4:12 pm

Court room 6 – Complainant (GNLU, Gandhinagar), speaker 1, began with a tinge of confidence by referring to Article 25(A) of ICCPR. Speaker 2 answered with conviction about the State of Murkey, violating the principles of customary  International Law. Extension was granted on various occasions. Respondent (School of Excellence in Law , Chennai), speaker 1, tried to effectively counter the Applicants contentions by stating that the existing govt. of Murkey never tried to overthrow the then existing Govt. They never violated any principles  of International Law. Respondent, speaker 2 , emphasized that Fenia deserved no concession as it violated Article 38(1)(d) of International Law. Questions put forth were efficiently answered with the help of additional information from the researcher.

Rebuttal: The Judges appreciated the facts and references stated by both the teams. Respondents seemed to be more prompt than the Applicants.

3:53 pm

In court room no. 5, Complainants (NLU, Odisha), speaker 1 started the argument referring to Sovereignty of State and case law - Paraguay vs. State of America. The Judge asked if Fenia is a popular Govt. Several time extensions were asked for. Speaker 2, referred to the case - Democratic Republic of Congo vs. Uganda. Additional information was provided by the researcher. Respondent (NUJS, Kolkata), speaker 2 started arguments and answered the questions with the help of facts and case laws with ease. Respondent, speaker 1 was grilled with questions by the Judges and the speaker answered them in length. Both the speakers had a composite delivery and referred to written submissions.

Rebuttal: Speaker 1 from the Respondent side begun with the rebuttal and denied the facts stated by the Applicant. Respondents had an upper hand in this rebuttal session.

3:40 pm

Court room no. 4

The applicants (Symbios Law School, Noida) were confident with their memorial and placed their arguments to bench which was welcomed and discussed. The judges seem to be patient and intrigued by the contentions presented by the applicants

KIIT University (Respondents) started on a confident note while the second speaker had bouts of nervousness.

The rebuttal put forth by the applicants and respondents was strong and well organized.

3:35 pm

Court room no. 2

NUALS, Kochi(Applicant) proved to be a team for the perfect conviction. They successfully convinced the bench in their favour.

on the other hand , the verbal delivery of the respondents (K C Law College, Mumbai) was not gathering the judges attention as the speaker stammered while giving his arguments. They failed to maintain the pace and the aggressiveness as initiated by the applicants. On several issues they pleaded ignorance to the panel.

The rebuttal ended by applicants giving the judges an impressive array of facts.

3:30 pm

Court room no. 1

The speaker 1 of applicant (Iraq- kurusdistan region University) had just stated the facts when the overly inquisitive judges bombarded questions one after the other but failed to break the speakers calmness while keeping the atmosphere persistently tense. Inspite of the confidence speaker 2 was not audible enough. Geneva conventions were contended, as a justification was asked by the judges for the intervention of territory.

The respondent’s (Lucknow University) speaker no. 2 averagely was competent.

During the rebut speaker 2 of lucknow university was belligerent.

3:36 pm

Court room no. 3 - A very nervous start by speaker 2 of Jagannath University asking for extra time and making the Judges furious. Speaker 2 still is unable to understand the judges queries  and were also unable to provide the facts for the same. The Judges asked a barrage of questions to the Respondent (Warsaw University, Poland) but they proved to be a tough cookie and swept away round 2 of the prelims from the hands of Jagannath University.

3:30 pm

The second preliminary round is now underway after a sumptuous meal provided by the Hosts.

2:45 pm

Round 1 has come to an end and we shall begin with round 2 of the prelims at 3:30 pm.

2:30 pm

Court room no. 9

The applicant (ULC, Bangalore) started with facts and citation of anti- Govt. files in the UN. The Judges listened calmly and asked them several questions on their facts but the replies given by the Applicant made the Judges a little impatient. The Respondent (Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi) was asked about the Right of Self- Defense. Speaker 2 took the interest of the judges and highlighted several facts on Human Rights Violation. The judges asked questions on global Human Right issues including the use of chemical weapon made by the State.

2:26 pm

Court room no. 11

Amity Law School, Noida, as Applicant and SLS Cochin, the Complainant took a nervous yet a steady start reading out the facts of the case. In return, the Respondent, in his loud and clear voice confidently impressed the Judges.

Rebuttal: The nervousness continued and irked the judges. Speaker 2 took advantage of the situation but was still not able to satisfy the Judges’ queries.

2:16 pm

Court room no. 12

The Complainant (Africa Nazarene University, Nairobi), started their argument by referring a book to the Judges on International Law. Their arguments mainly focused on democratic issues and hence they were able to get the judges interest. The respondent after hearing the Complainant, Nairobi directly went on the 2007 Financial Emergency in Fenia. Speaker 1 in his loud voice concluded his argument by mentioning the CCWC Treaty. The judges bombarded the speakers with several questions including, a few on democratic issues as raised by the Applicant.

Rebuttal: it ended in silence and judges took a little more time than as usual to write down the judgment.

2:30 pm

Court room No. 14

Applicant (SVKM Mumbai), the main argument was "if the use of weapons was right or wrong". It was quite descriptive and fact oriented.

Respondent (DES Pune), The main question asked by the judges was "if using of weapons gives a right to outsiders to intervene"The team asked for time extension. Th Panel graciously ended the session.

2:15 pm

Court 13

Complainant(GLC,Calicut),Speaker 1, initially speaker 1 was diffident when questioned on agreement treaty but once assisted by researcher ,it was well answered.Speaker 2, spoke confidently when questioned on signed treaty of MCCW but wavered later making contradictory statements.

Respondent(School of Law,Christ University,Bangalore), Speaker 1, started off with conviction and asked the judges who were inquisitive judges to refer to the memorial. Speaker 2, Judges questioned every fact put forward .Additional information was passed to support arguments Speaker was confused between indulging of weapons and using of weapons.

Rebuttal: The rebuttal ended on a equal note and the session ended.

1:58 pm

In court room no. 8, Complainant (V.M. Salgaocar College of Law, Goa), Speaker 1, started with a confident delivery and asked the Judges to refer Article 3 of IC Draft Commission. Judges have been questioning on the facts but speaker is taking extra time to answer the questions. Speaker 2, has taken over and is referring to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, case law- Congo vs. Uganda, about armed conflicts. Judges asked whether speaker is in favour of democracy or dictatorship, additional information has been passed by the researcher to the speaker and the researcher requests the Judge to refer to a book on 'International Law and Human Rights'. The Judges have pointed out wrong facts by the speaker who have accepted their imperfection. Respondent (RGNUL, Patiala), speaker 1, refers to Articles of UN Charter and have been able to answer the questions put forth by judges competently. Speaker 2 has taken over and judges are referring to the memorial.

Rebuttal : Complainant, speaker 1, is talking about Murkish forces and Fenia chemical missile attacks on army base. Respondent, speaker 2, is stating facts and strengthened the argument by mentioning NCCW Peace Treaty signed by Fenia which has never been signed by Murkey. Judges said both team were at par. Session concluded on a satisfactory note.

1:49 pm

In court room no. 7, Complainant(ILS, Pune)  speaker 1, started his arguments by stating facts of the case. The Judges were listening patiently initially but became inquisitive eventually. Speaker has been able to answer the questions confidently. Judges are appreciating the answers and arguments of both the speakers. Respondent, (NLU, Jodhpur), Speaker 1, has a fluent and confident delivery, time extension has been granted. Speaker 2 starts with strong arguments but deviated from the questions asked by the Judges and is slightly confused and stammering.

Rebuttal : Applicant has a convincing start and asks for time extension. Respondents' arguments are clear and apt and no questions have been put up by the Judges. Session concluded on a poised note.

1:44 pm

In court room no. 6, Complainant, (NUJS, Kolkata) speaker 1, started with a confident delivery and asks for time extension. Judges are listening to the speaker calmly. Speaker 2 takes over the podium. Judges question about indirect use of force. The arguments of speakers are declared weak by the Judges. Respondent (GNLU, Gandhinagar), speaker 1, started the argument referring to the Doctrine of Responsibility not maintained by African side, time extension was asked for by the speaker. Both teams have concluded their arguments. Judges seem slightly disappointed due to deviation from the memorial. The judges rejected the offer of rebuttal.

1:32 pm

In courtroom no. 2, Speaker 1 of Lucknow University was stammering a lot and nervously presented herself  but the team was held together by a very strong Researcher. Speaker 1 of NUALS, Kochi, was seen constantly ignoring the Judges bombardment of questions while Speaker 2 stepped up confidently and answered with conviction. Session ended with both teams exuding eager anticipation.

1:26 pm

In court room no. 4, Warsaw University, Poland were unable to interpret the Judges' questions and asked for repeated reiteration and hence could not come up with a satisfactory answer.

Symbiosis Law School, Noida seemed pretty confident and head strong and put up heavy and competent arguments to the panel. Session has ended.

1:21 pm

In court room no. 15, GLC, Mumbai vs. Raffles University, Complainant, Speaker 1 has started with the brief of the moot problem referring to the fact sheet. Judges asked for difference between external aggression and war. Speaker 2 has started speaking confidently stating the Hague Conference which also presented the prayer stating grave injustice and being against the principle of international law. Respondent, Speaker 1, not very assured and cited Fenia as India by mistake. Judges questioned the breach of treaty to which Respondent cited Vietnam use of chemical weapons. Speaker 2, patiently quoted UDHR violations. there was a lack of research on part of the Respondent when questioned if there was any provision under Human Rights Convention to support Merci's case, to which the counsel pleaded ignorance.

Rebuttal : Complainant said quoting other civil wars not relevant as it was not an act of self - defense. Judges asked Respondents if they should be going through the route of municipal laws rather than the UN which contradicted the Respondents.

Session has come to an end.

1:16pm

In court room no. 1, K.C Law college rebutted quoting Clause 7 of the UN Charter justifying their right to defend using external aggression while Iraq-Kurdistan Region University was no less. They competently presented their arguments as well. It was a neck-to-neck battle. 

session has ended.

1:05 pm

Court room no. 10,(Applicants- NUSRL, Ranchi and Respondents, HNLU, Raipur) the teams are over with their rebuttal. Both the teams answered the Judges very confidently and ended the round 1 rebuttal on a calm note.

1:03 pm

In court room no. 5, the respondent, (NLU, Odisha) Speaker 2 ,has been asked to define insurgency and he has been able to answer the questions well. Researcher has passed additional information and time extension has been asked for. The rebuttal has begun. Complaint, (School of Excellence in Law, Chennai, references have been declared irrelevant by the Judges. Respondent, speaker 1 said that the facts stated by the opposition are wrong. Rebuttal over.

12:55 pm

Court room no. 16, (Applicant Amity Law School, IP University,Delhi), Speaker 1 started off with the facts who was fumbling but answered the judges' questions politely. Speaker 2 started off confidently but managed to irk the judges with repetitive mistakes. Respondents (Vistula University, Poland), Speaker 1 has confidently begun with the arguments and the judges seem to be accepting them. the Judges seem to be quite inquisitive and the speaker has been giving satisfying answers. arguments have been summed up and the session end.

12:51 pm

The KIIT university, have crushed Jagannath University, they being neonates in mooting.

12:17 pm

The complainant, Speaker 1 (School of Excellence in Law, Chennai) started with the facts. The pace of their arguments is normal and confident and the judges are questioning on the democracy of the State. The Speaker gives satisfactory answers. The judges have been asked to refer Art. 21, 25, 38A, 3. Frequent questions are being asked by the judges and the speaker has asked for time extension. The respondent, Speaker 1 (NLU, Orissa) is referring to the notes and the judges are inquisitive. 

12:20 pm

Applicant (ULC, Bangalore) confidently answers questions on Fenia and anti- Govt. files in the US. The judges happen to listen to the speaker no.1 very patiently though they are not satisfied with their answers.

12:09 pm 

In court room no. 1, K.C Law College, Mumbai has been cornered by the judges and the judges seem to be pretty inquisitive. The complainants couldn’t provide satisfactory facts. The respondent (Iraq- Kurdistan region University) on the other hand are quite confident.

16^th March 2013

10:45am

We have officially kicked off with Lex Sollemnis this morning. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra, Judge ,Supreme Court of India, Hon’ble Justice Mr. D. R. Deshmukh, Chairman ,Company Law Board, New Delhi, in the gracious presence of Hon’ble Shri Manan Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate, Chairman, Bar Council of India, Hon’ble Prof Shri Paramjit S. Jaswal, Vice-Chancellor , RGNUL, Punjab, Hon’ble Shri Mahesh A. Athawale, Former President , Institute of Company Secretaries of India, New Delhi, declared the competition open in a ceremonial manner.   

15^th March 2013

8:45pm

A night before the competition, we have all the 32 teams present in our campus and also the 5 teams participating in the National Model Directors’ Meet. The teams have been escorted by our team escorts to our college campus for the orientation programme which comprised of registration of teams followed by draw of lots. To break the ice the orientation programme included a spectacular performance by our college cultural team with their theme being HUMAN RIGHTS. Further, the programme was concluded by exchange of memorials which would give the teams a fair idea of what they will face tomorrow.

Tomorrow, the inauguration of Lex sollemnis will begin at 9:45am in the auspicious hands of Hon’ble Justice Mr.  Dipak Misra, Judge, Supreme Court of India, Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.R. Deshmukh, Chairman, Company Law Board, New Delhi  in the presence of Hon’ble Shri  Manan Kumar Mishra, Chairman, Bar Counsel of India and Hon’ble Prof. Dr. Paramjit S. jaswal, Vice Chancellor, RGNUL, Punjab. It will be followed by release of Bharati Law Review (BLR- international refereed journal).

After the inauguration, we will commence with the prelims of Justice P.N. Bhagwati 3^rd International Moot Court sharp at 11:30am. We will be holding the 2^nd round of NMDM simultaneously with the prelims of the moot court.

We’ll be blogging live for the LEX SOLLEMNIS right from its inauguration. Stay tuned with us to keep a track on your respective college performances as well as to have a complete insight for the event and invite visitors of legally India to join us for the same.

We once again wish all the belligerent and competent participants all the best for the battle.

Good Night,

Blogging Team

New Law College, Pune.

Justice P.N. Bhagwati 3^rd International Moot Court Competition on Human Rights

National Model Directors’ Meet For Law Students(NMDM)

Legal Quiz

13/03/2013

With just 2 days to go for NLC Lex Sollemnis (LAW FEST) which includes the JUSTICE P.N. BHAGWATI 3^rd INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT ON HUMAN RIGHTS at NEW LAW COLLEGE, PUNE, the blogging team brings you from here an exclusive insight into it.

For last two years we have seen eminent personalities from the legal fraternity joining us including Hon’ble Justice P.N. Bhagwati who was also the former Chief Justice of India and a living legend of law. The first edition of the P.N. Bhagwati Moot Court Competition on Human Rights received an overwhelming response from all over India and teams from abroad participated as well.

The 1^st Edition of the “Justice P.N. Bhagwati International Moot Court Competition on Human Rights” was inaugurated by Hon’ble Dr. M Veerappa Moily, the then Union Minister for Law and Justice in the august presence of Hon’ble Justice P.N. Bhagwati, former Chief Justice of India and member of the UNHRC.

In the 2^nd Edition of the competition, the moot problem was based on a fictional dispute between countries on the issues of International Human Rights before the International Court of Justice, the judicial organ of the United Nations. Teams from abroad including University of Reading, UK; School of Law, DE Paul University, Chicago, USA; Vistula University, Poland and University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland and other 25 top law schools from across India were competing in the competition. The competition rounds were judged by renowned legal experts including Chairpersons of several State Human Rights Commissions, Judges and eminent personalities from the legal fraternity.

This year the Lex Sollemnis will be inaugurated by  Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra, Judge ,Supreme Court of India, Hon’ble Justice Mr. D. R. Deshmukh, Chairman ,Company Law Board, New Delhi, in the gracious presence of Hon’ble Shri Manan Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate, Chairman, Bar Council of India, Hon’ble Prof Shri Paramjeet S. Jaswal, Vice-Chancellor , RGNUL, Punjab, Hon’ble Shri Mahesh A. Athawale, Former President , Institute of Company Secretaries of India, New Delhi, Hon’ble Prof. Dr. David A. Jones, Director, United States Law Program, University of Warsaw, Poland and Hon’ble Prof. Jerzy Pawel Gieorgica, Professor, Vistula University, Poland, Hon’ble Dr. Patangrao kadam, chancellor, Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University, Hon’ble Prof. Dr. Shivajirao Kadam, Vice Chancellor, Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University, Pune and Hon’ble Dr. Vishwajeet Kadam, Seretary Bharati Vidyapeeth and other eminent legal jurists from India.

This year’s edition is brought to you in association with Legally India, Corporate Law advisors (CLA), SCC Online, Advocate khoj and Legal Era.

This year’s problem is not just a brain twister but also a dispute which includes the various current global issues on human rights including use of chemical weapons in warfare, insurgency activities and other democratic issues etc.

Further, for the first time ever we will be holding the National Model Directors’ Meet for law students .The competition is designed to meet the corporate and legal industry needs and to provide a spark of corporate law among the law students in such a practical manner that will make them global corporate lawyers. Comprising of 2 rounds where the first round will see participants filing a review petition in the form of written submissions in which the participants will have to advance their arguments so as to reverse the judgments given by the Supreme Court already in the case.

The participants’ main attempt should be to negate the contentions of the Court. The second round which will have the top 5 teams of round one will be invited for the National Model Directors Meet for Law students scheduled to be held on 16th of March 2013. In round 2, the teams would be required to prepare a directors’ brief which shall include a notice, agenda, power point presentation and conclusion (vote of thanks) etc. This would be followed by a query session where the participants will face a panel of judges as well as shareholders (shareholders may be the participants who will be allowed to observe the meeting and some shareholders may be provided by the organizers).

The Winners of NMDM will be awarded with a cash prize of INR 11,000 and a winning trophy and the runners-up will be awarded a cash prize of INR 7,000 and a runners-up trophy. A special award will be given to the best performer in the overall meet namely the “Unleash the CEO” award with a cash prize of INR 5,000 and a trophy.

We will also be having a Legal Quiz on 17^th of March’13 consisting of 25 teams. The first round of which will have participants answering questions specifically on Criminal Law and the second round or the final round will be based on Constitutional Law. The quiz is on buzzer round basis.

We wish all the participants all the best for Lex Sollemnis and do keep a track of this page to have a detailed view of the event including your respective college performances.

Good Day

Ishaan Mukherjee & Neha Kamat