•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

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

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences
An estimated 146-minute read
 Email  Facebook  Tweet  Linked-in



Hidayatullah National Law University is pleased to host the 11th Justice Hidayatullah Memorial National Moot Court Competition, HNMCC'19. The Justice Hidayatullah Memorial National Moot Court Competition was started as a part of the centenary celebrations of the eminent jurist, author, and linguist, Justice Mohammad Hidayatullah.

Over the course of a decade, HNMCC has established a reputation among the legal fraternity, of being one of India’s premier moot court competitions. The moot is organized by the students and faculty of Hidayatullah National Law University under the able guidance and mentorship of the Hon'ble Vice Chancellor Prof. (Dr.) V.C. Vivekanandan.

HNMCC has always witnessed spirited participation from more than 20 universities in all of its previous editions. In this edition, after scrutinizing over 40 memorials in the initial memorial round, 28 teams from various reputed universities across the country have been selected to compete against each other for the coveted Justice Hidayatullah Memorial trophy, the 1st runner’s up prize, the title of the best speaker, the best memorial, and the best researcher.

In the previous editions, HNMCC has been fortunate to enjoy the expertise of a stellar panel comprising of eminent sitting judges of the High Court of Chhattisgarh for the final rounds while partners of reputed law firms, eminent academicians and experienced advocates from the Supreme Court and the High Court of India served as judges for the preceding rounds.

The 11th Justice Hidayatullah Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2019 sponsored by the Competition Commission of India (CCI-HNMCC 2019) and in association with P & A Law Offices, would begin from the 18th to 20th October 2019.

The event will officially begin on 18-10-2019 at 2:00PM with the registrations. 


18th October, Friday


01:00 PM- 02:00 PM

Registration of Teams

02:00 PM- 04:00 PM

Inaugural Session

04:00 PM – 05:00 PM

Tea Break

05:30 PM – 06:00 PM

Orientation & Draw of Lots

/Exchange of Memorials

06:30 PM – 07:30 PM

Researcher’s Test


8:00 PM – 9:00 PM

9;00 PM – 10:30 PM

19th October, Saturday


08:00 AM – 09:00 AM

Judges Briefing

10:30 AM – 11:30 AM

Prelims Session I

12:00 AM – 1:00 PM


1:30 PM – 02:30 PM

Prelims Session II

03:00 PM – 04:00 PM

Tea Break

04:30 PM – 05:00 PM

Declaration of Prelims Result

05:00 PM

Quarterfinal Rounds

06:00 PM – 07:30 PM

Dinner hosted by the Hon’ble Vice Chancellor

And declaration of Quarter final results 

08:30 PM – 10:30 PM

20th October, Sunday


8:00 AM – 9:00 AM

Judges Briefing

9:30 AM – 10:30 AM


10:30 AM – 12:00 PM


12:30 PM – 1:30 PM


02:00 PM – 04:00 PM

Tea Break

04:00 PM – 04:30 PM

Declaration of Results and

Valedictory Session

04:30 PM – 06:00 PM


07:30 PM – 11:00 PM


Day 1 | October 19, 2019 | Friday

The participants bustle in and out of the registration room, scampering to complete the formalities and proceed to the Inaugural Ceremony. On the contrary, the hosts are scurrying to put the finishing touches to the event they have been preparing for well over a month.



4:30 PM : The much awaited ceremony begins! The invoking the blessings of goddess Sarasvati i.e lighting of the lamp has begun with an exceptionally melodious recitation of the Sarasvati Vandana. Members of the student organising committee felicitate all faculty members involved in organising the event as a token of gratitude and appreciation.

4:38 PM : The felicitation is followed by an address by Dr. Deepak Kumar Srivastava, faculty coordinator for the event, who welcomes participants from across the nation and members of the HNLU Fraternity.

4: 42 PM : Akanksha Tiwari, Student Co-Coordinator, delivers an address on the legacy of HNMCC and Justice Hidayatullah.

4:45 PM : The Registrar (in-charge), Dr. Ayan Hazra gives a warm welcome to the anxious participants and delivers the formal vote of thanks for the Inaugural Ceremony. The participants and the rest of the “crowd” in the auditorium, now leave for the much-awaited refreshment break.

6:00 PM : After a lot of important engagements/sessions in the auditorium, the inconsequential draw of lots has commenced. The teams were busy observing, judging their competition and also exchanging their memorials .

6:45 PM : Due to the immensely overwhelming and taxing  nature of the opening ceremony, 2 teams had to take a short break which resulted in a short delay of 45 minutes in the draw of lots. The speakers of all teams are now free from all engagements for the day. The researchers now fight for the best researcher award in the new acad-block.

7:00 PM : The participants are preparing for the researchers’ test and the tension in the air is palpable. It’s the calm before the storm; teams appraise their rivals as the first competitive event approaches.

7:50 PM : Participants file for the venue of the researchers’ test.

8:00 PM : The researchers’ test begins.

8:15 PM : Faces contort in bewilderment and heads are being scratched as participants answer the researchers’ test.

8:30 PM : Researchers exit the hall and heave long sighs. Whether of relief or of exasperation is anyone’s guess. Participants proceed for dinner and then retire to their rooms to prepare for a grueling day of rounds and to prove their mettle against their rivals to win the crown.


Day 2 | October 19, 2019 | Saturday

Prelims Round 1 (12:16 - 14:01)

Court Room no. 12

T 24 (Informant) v. T 27 (Opposing Party)

T 24, Speaker 1:

The first speaker on behalf of the informant approaches the dias with the permission of the bench. Speaker 1 is explaining the issue and the facts of the case. The speaker seems confident but due to the hot and humid weather, and the unavailability of proper ventilation, both the judges and the speaker seems irritated. And I can verify the same for you guys.  The speaker brings his first argument in the field as his armor. It doesn’t seem to be his day, guys. He is being criticised and chided by the bench as he seems to be a bit confused about the facts. The speaker seems nervous and the court clerk shows the time for the speaker. He has 2 minutes left. It seems as if his time passed in a second! The clerk shows the sign for time up but the speaker continues to speak and even the judges keep on interrogating him. The clerk surely feels ignored! Poor him! His face literally screams ‘am I joke to you?’. Well, luck wasn’t on the speaker’s side. He has to leave the dais due to lack of time. Well, time sure is like sand in one’s palm.

T 24, Speaker 2:

As soon as the speaker starts speaking, he is interrupted and questioned about the facts previously stated by the speaker 1. The other team members seem tensed as the judges keep on firing questions. Speaker 2 gains some momentum and starts speaking confidently and referring to the precedents to tackle the situation. The judges seem very aggravated by the fact that the team has no clarity about the facts. The other team seems nervous as the judges aren’t letting the speaker present the facts and keep on interrogating him. I think they fear the future just as much as I await it. The court clerk indicates the speaker is in the final two minutes of his time. The speaker after summarising his arguments leaves the dais with the permission of the judges.

T 27, Speaker 1:

The judges ask the speaker to show the rulebook even before the speaker starts speaking. The team is chided by the judge for not being properly dressed. Someone seems to have forgotten their court manners! The speaker reads the facts for the judges. The judges ask questions about the matter and the speaker stops speaking out of nerves and leaves the dais even before the time runs out. Well, that ended quickly.

T 27, Speaker 2:

The speaker starts speaking but again having not complied with the instructions and not wearing proper formals has agitated the bench successfully. Great way to lose some time! Good going! The speaker is then granted permission to speak and present the facts. The speaker tries to convince the judges with his arguments but the judges, seem dissatisfied. He now begins with his next argument. Questions are being asked to the speaker and the speaker is unable to answer them. Just like the temperature on this lovely day, the arguments are getting heated. The interrogation continues, and the court clerk shows the sign for the last 2 minutes. And the time runs out. 


The speaker from Team 27 started speaking, and the court clerk shows that 5 minutes are left. The speaker stated some points and seeks the permission of the judges to leave and here the round comes to an end.


Court Room no. 13

T 07 (Informant) v. T 09 (Opposing Party)

The court clerk has started to brief the judges. The court proceedings have begun, the informant’s first speaker now having started to present her arguments.

T 07, SPEAKER 1:

The speaker is making her points heard to the bench. The judges look absolutely focussed and it seems that they mean business. Every now and then the speaker is being interjected by the judges but she seems to be handling it well. The speaker is asked to differentiate between two specific terms and is completely caught off guard. She tries to convince the bench with her sugar-coated words, but the judges don’t seem impressed. The bench is asking for concrete legal arguments from the speaker to back her case. Can she bring her stand back as strong as ever? Let’s wait and watch, readers!  It's the third time now that the bench has allowed the speaker to procure extra time. I wonder how long this is going to take. This is it, dear readers. Her time is finally over.

T 07, SPEAKER 2:

The speaker starts on a very promising note, presenting their side articulately complemented with rapid hand gestures. Man! I love a great game of dumb charades. The bench continues to barrage the speaker with technical questions and seems to have found a major flaw in the arguments of the counsel. The arguments have now touched the terms KFC and CocaCola and the speaker is doing everything required to ignite the ravenous soul hidden in me. Not cool, bruh!

There was a bit confusion regarding the time allotted to the second team. All sorted now. We are great, people! No troubles!

T 09, SPEAKER 1:

I think the speaker is in dire need of a haircut and it looks like he didn’t get enough sleep last night but who am I to judge? Okay, so he sounds well versed with the facts and starts off with a reassuring baritone. The bench seems committed to interrupting the speaker and leaves him perplexed on the question of the legal foundation of the very case. Guys, we have dead silence here, a very anxious one at that. I can feel it in my very bones. The speaker now seems to be contemplating his own existence. He seems to be absolutely shaken by the rapid-fire round if I might call it so. In my opinion, the judges are creating the impression that they are lost and absolutely failing to remain on the same page as the speaker. We seem to have now entered the sphere of social media. We might need some filters to scrutinise the arguments of the speaker and make them look pretty. That’s it, his struggle is over now, fortunate for him.

T 09, SPEAKER 2 :

The team, I guess, seems very vulnerable as the second speaker seems to have his defences down from the very beginning. He is failing to respond to the continuous questions asked by the bench. The judges feel that the counsel is contradicting his own case and ask him to ponder on which side he is arguing for. Digging our own grave, are we? The judges seem to be doing more talking than the speaker. I think the case right here is very funny in itself. The bench again reminds the speaker that his arguments aren’t helping him and asks him to summarise and conclude. The bench seems to be done with them. 


Guys, I might have to shift closer because her voice isn’t audible at all and no, I am not a creep if I do so. Against all odds, she vehemently expresses her opinions and leaves the dais. Readers, I declare this round as over.


Court Room no. 3

TC 06 (Informant) v. TC 21 (Opposing Party) 

TC 06, Speaker 1 12:15 PM

The first speaker on behalf of the informant approaches the dais and seeks 15 minutes of the court’s time  to present the contention. Speaker seems confident. Judges ask the counsel to state the facts based on the merits of the case. Counsel is being questioned on the maintainability of the case. Judges begin a rapid round of questioning, counsel remains calm and confident. Judges seem persuaded by issue 1 and the counsel starts with issue 2. Speaker is trying her best to answer the questions by the bench. Counsel requests the bench for the extension of time and is allowed the same to wind up her argument. The counsel impresses the judges by tying the clarification with her contentions.

TC 06, Speaker 2 12:40 PM

Co-counsel mentions the issues he will be dealing with. The judges are well read about the subject of law being discussed so the counsel finds it difficult yet manageable to answer their queries. The counsel seems to make tall claims that do not logically follow from the facts, and this is highlighted by the bench. The court clerk flashes the sign indicating that the speaker’s time is over, but the judges are intrigued by the trailing end of the agent’s sentence.  Counsel is struggling with the explanation to the questions and the judge seems dissatisfied. He asks for the extension of time to state the prayer. He is questioned on the relief demanded, as referenced in the petition.

TC 21, Speaker 1 1:00 PM

The counsel approaches the dais and introduces himself. He is immediately bombarded with questions about the issues. He is unable to maintain his calm pace and is struggling to convince the judges, they seem confused and dissatisfied. He isn’t sure about his contention. Judges question his argument based on the facts, he is not able to derive any logical argument from the same. He is asked to refer a document provided by the bench and is being interrogated. Speaker is attempting to conclude but judges hinder and he is still struggling with the clarification. The court clerk is reminding the bench of the time but they are least concerned about it  and they demand a proper explanation to the contention. Not able to answer properly, dais is handed over to co-counsel. 

TC 21, Speaker 2 1:20 PM

The speaker greeting the bench starts with his issue as stated by him. He is quite confident with his argument. He is immediately interrupted by the bench, breaking down the question he tries to answer.  The judges are scrutinising every bit of his speech keenly. He is running out of time but judges are still interrogating his principal claim. He is trying to convince the  bench on the line of facts. Judges mention about the lapse of time and ask him about their final query. While he was trying to impress the bench by his knowledge of the law, he is once again interrupted by the bench. He isn’t allowed to recite his prayer. 

Rebuttal 1:37 PM

The bench poses some questions and rebuttals are made in a concise and structured manner and the bench is impressed with the clarity of arguments. Again, the Court is least concerned about the lapse of time. 

Sur-rebuttal 1:44 PM

Speaker briefly addresses the allegations imposed by Informant and the round ends.

Prelims Round 1

Courtroom No. 2

TC 04 (Informant) v. TC 16 (Opposing Party)

TC 04, Speaker 1:  12:14 PM

The speaker begins confidently but is set off course slightly by the judge’s devious grin. The barrage of questions has already begun. The speaker isn’t even done with the facts yet and the grilling is getting intense already! This speaker needs a researcher like Jay needs Veeru. Judges do not seem satisfied with the establishment of facts by the speaker and seem to have given up even before arguments. The speaker impresses with expressions and body language but the heart wants what it wants (logic!). Time over, but the speaker doesn’t seem to be much obliged.

TC 04 , Speaker 2 : 12:37 PM

This speaker promptly moves to arguments. She seems very stressed out and is speaking fast, this child of jesus needs help! A ray of hope arrived in the form of a chit passed by the researcher. The bench is unimpressed. The other team was sleeping and the judges just distubed their afternoon siesta, this bench is having a lot of fun! The speaker knows 99 cases but unfortunately the judges need the other 1. Pro tip from the  judges : RELAX!

TC 16, Speaker 1 : 12:55 PM

Speaker 1 of opposing party is calm and composed but it doesn't seem like she knows the facts per se. The trick is to smile and wait for the researcher’s magic chit. The bench is explaining the facts, discussing judgements and referencing the issues. Great mooters are created in times of such pressure but this speaker has taken a vow of silence, she isn’t speaking. Whether spirituality and mooting go hand in hand is for the judges to decide.

TC 16, Speaker 2 : 1:11 PM

This speaker is well versed with the facts. Pro Tip #2 When in doubt, pretend to read the memo. Welcome to the lecture series on Competition Law being hosted by the bench, guess I won’t have to take that optional in 4th year. The speaker seems to be lost and is neither answering nor attentive, channeling Anil Kapoor in Mr. India. The final speech comes to an end and none too soon, upstairs lunch has been served.

There were no rebuttals.

Prelims Round 1

Courtroom No. 4

TC 25 (Informant)  v. TC 28 (Opposing Party)

TC 25, Speaker 1: 12:20 PM

The speaker starts smoothly but the judge was kind enough to cross question as soon as she began, consequently breaking down her calm demeanour bit by bit. Here comes another startling question but it seems like the speaker was prepared for this exact moment, spitting fire like Eminem. We can observe the clear difference between an anticipated question and an unanticipated question. There comes the court clerk making failed attempts to bring an end to things, just like our alarm clocks strive to do every morning. I guess the Lordship is reminiscing his mooting days as he is mooting pari passu with the speakers. The speaker has unsettlingly settled her propositions.  

TC 25, Speaker 2: 12:50 PM

Here comes the stalwart backing his co-counsel and opening his statements with impassioned justifications.The judge talks about how the only use of the internet explorer is to download google chrome, makes me feel nostalgic. The judges questioned an assumption made by the team to back their contention, this isn’t our evening debate at the lakeside stairs, arguments based on assumptions don’t fly here. The speaker finally gives up on the unending debate and pleads on behalf of his party.

TC 28, Speaker 1 1:24 PM 

The opposing counsel started off with her arguments resiliently, despite facing health issues. She gave an indication of her confidence by requesting permission from the Lordship to conclude the facts in a line or two and was granted the same. The judge has served an ultimatum, speaker must rebut at least one of the arguments of the informing party regarding the sections in question. There’s dead silence and the counsel has been given the option to move on. The speaker moved on to  her concluding statements.   

TC 28, Speaker 2 1:48PM

The Speaker starts off on the wrong foot as the judges point out errors in the memo. The speaker wants to amend his words as amending the documents at this stage is definitely out of the question. One of the panel members has taken to searching for answers online, after all what is a paltry mooter in front of the great Google? This has been the longest stretch of discussion and now even the desks and chairs seem to be begging for the final pleadings to be addressed. Sigh of relief as the rebuttals have finally started 

Rebuttal 2:14 PM

The panel is looking for that one argument in rebuttal, that elusive one. It is left to be seen whether such dreams come true.

Sur-rebuttal 12:16 PM

Like a drowning man clutching at straws, the speaker makes one last ditch attempt to convey the strength of their case, and with that the round comes to an end.

Preliminary Round 1 

Courtroom No. 5 

12:18 PM- 1:35 PM

Informant (TC 10) v Opposing Party (TC 12)

Speaker 01 (Informant) 12:18 PM 

The judges have arrived in the courtroom and the informants and the opposing parties stand up to show courtesy. 

The speaker approaches the dais with the permission of the bench and begins her arguments by stating a foreign authority (did she miss the memo about Make in India?) on position of the Opposing Authority in the market. The judges hit the speaker with a barrage of questions, which the speaker answers without faltering. The judges question the speaker about the problems of the case. The speaker presents the argument on the position of the competition law in the market. The judges ask the speaker to elucidate the facts and problems of the case. 

The speaker presents her other arguments confidently. The tension is apparent in the air. The allotted time runs out, but the judges give the speaker five more minutes. 

Speaker 02 12:40 PM 

The speaker approaches the dais with an air of confidence and states her side of the arguments. The judges questions the speaker about what issue she is referring to regarding the case. The judges again hit the speaker with a row of questions but the speaker looks a bit perplexed. 

Opposing party 12:54 PM 

Speaker 01 12:54 PM 

The speaker from the opposing team reaches the dais and presents his arguments before the judges and starts by glancing at his notes for a quick reference. He starts an argument on IPR. The time runs out but the speaker continues to present the arguments. The judges question the speaker about a specific case but it seems that the speaker isn’t versed with the facts of the case. 

The speaker then presents his other argument in the light of the case. The arguments are assertive and under the context. The judges listen to the issues with utmost attention.  The speaker concludes his argument and returns to his seat. 

Speaker 02 1:09 PM 

The speaker seeks permission to approach the dais and the same is granted by the judges. The speaker starts off with his speech eloquently. Although a tinge of nervousness is visible on the face, the arguments are well-explained.  The judges after listening to the convictions made by the speaker hit the speaker with furthermore questions.  The speaker refers to his notes and proceeds with his arguments. The researcher aids the speaker in between the proceeding. 

The speaker’s voice is audible but a tad bit faster in pace. The last issue is raised by the speaker which he elucidates to the judges and reverts to his seat. 

Rebuttal (Informant) 1:32 PM

Speaker 1 approaches for the rebuttal. She states some authorities directly attacking at the core of the Opposing Party’s arguments. She refers to the facts once again and then concludes her arguments.

Rebuttal (Opposing party) 1:33 PM 

Speaker 1 from the opposing party approaches the dias. With his facts, short and concise, he draws it to a close. 

Both parties, informants and the opposing party, leave the room. Exeunt all.

Preliminary Round 1

Courtroom No. 10

Informant (TC 22)  v Opposing Party (TC 18)

Speaker 1 (Informant) (12:20 pm)

The counsel seeks permission to start.

The speaker approaches the dais, as the speaker asks to start the proceedings but is interrupted by the judge, telling the person to explain the facts. The speaker starts the contention with a boom, he is pretty confident and also grabs the attention of the judges effectively. The judges fire a salvo of questions but it should be appreciated that the speaker replies with the same fire. The judges still seem unsatisfied, so the speaker cites judicial precedents to prove his point but that makes no difference. One of the judge continues firing questions, the other seems to be more interested in the meaning of life. The judge tries to calm the speaker down as his aggression goes up for proving his point. The buzzer goes off, but is ignored by both, the speaker and the judges.

Speaker 2 (Informant) (12:38 pm)   

The speaker sounds soft-spoken, teetering on meek. Initially,  he is unable to draw the attention of the judges. Here enters the photographer and the court clerk seems a bit more interested in the photographs than the proceedings. The speaker tries hard to convince the judge but she is firm with her contentions and the speaker seems to grow nervous. The judges demand for evidence to be produced, but the speaker humbly pleads her inability, blaming it on the printing section. The informants produces a judicial precedent in a written form but the judges prima facie send it back saying it is completely irrelevant. The Informant recites the prayer and then concludes their case.

Speaker 1 (Opposing Party) (12:53 pm):

The speaker approaches the dais and he is as fast as lightning and it seems that everyone present here is unable to understand. He provides a two-fold argument whereby developing a causal link in the proceedings. The speaker stumbles and make a very wrong statement which is completely against what he is trying to prove and is  abruptly questioned by the judge so apologizes and rephrases the statement. The judge somehow explains the speaker that his contentions are weak but he also with the same enthusiasm tries to explain to the judge about what he has to say but the judge declares his contentions unattractive (Oops).  As the buzzer goes off, speaker humbly asks for extra time and is granted. But the judges still seems unsatisfied.

Speaker 2(Opposing Party) (01:13 pm):

The speaker starts with explaining issue no 3 and 4 as asked by the judges. The judge seems uninterested in his speech as the speaker is unable to explain what is asked of him by the judge. Agent stumbles around trying to find a way out of the web he is stuck in, but alas! He is unable to do so. The speaker explains a principle which is completely out of the context. The speaker fails to clarify further queries of the judges and the discussion is in a loop. Nonetheless the speaker has some obsession with the word INDEED, this is the 50th time(I really have the number) the speaker uttered the word “indeed”. The informant interrupts in between explaining the judge a precedent cited by the speaker as he is unable to(obviously). They wrap up but the judge still seems unsatisfied also uninterested. 

Rebuttals (Informant) (1:34 pm):

The speaker seems really confident and presentable. He very strongly opposes the other party’s contentions. He is continuously interjected by the first judge but very firmly replies to all of them. It seems that the second judge is enjoying it but silently. 

Rebuttals (Opposing Party) (01:41 pm): 

The speaker starts replying to all the rebuttals presented by the informants. The judges seems unsatisfied but the speaker continues to defend his team’s stance and justify their rationality.

With that the first round of the prelims in the courtroom ends and the judges are completely into the scoresheets trying to come to a consensus.

Prelims Round 1

Courtroom no.: 14

T.C. 03 (Informant)  Vs. T.C. 13  (Opposing Party)

All rise when the judges enter the courtroom. The arrival of the judges is enough to drain all color from their faces. The silence is getting louder, I am not used to this (internal screaming)! 

It is evident that the court clerk is a newbie and she’s not so acquainted with what the judges are asking or saying. Okay, maybe she is more nervous than the teams. Someone, please get the poor kid some ice water. 

The judges are busy reading the material in front of them.

Here we go again, the clerk being awkward while dealing with the judges. This child is so start-struck, she might as well scream and ask for an autograph while she is at it. Jesus take the wheel!

SPEAKER 1 (Informant): 12:35 PM 

The informant politely asks to approach the dais and present their part of the case. He seems confident enough to repeat what he’s saying just twice, because duh! why not? 

‘Stark Industries’ proceeds to talk about relevant sections. One blunder and we can see the end of Avengers. A string of apologies later, Thanos decides to calm down. Oh! Idea for a play: How would the story of infinity war unfold in a courtroom? Is someone writing this down? Hello?

Before the agent could present another argument, he is questioned by the bench. One judge is so pleased with the speaker’s arguments that he is not letting the informant stop.

The court clerk, as usual, gets ignored by everyone. If fly on the wall was a person, it would be her. The bench does not pay heed to the ringing of bell and holding out of time cards. 

The bench seems conflicted; One judge being very content with whatever the speaker is trying to convey while the other being furious with him. Terrible dilemma! I wonder what the agent will do *munches popcorn*.

And it’s time up for this one! Court clerk finally catches the eyes of the judges and the speaker is dismissed.

SPEAKER 2 (Informant): 12:50 PM

The second speaker enters the arena. The bench is all warmed up and set. The speaker begins with his arguments. Okay, is it just us who are bothered by it or buttoning and unbuttoning one’s shirt is a new fad in moot courts? Even the Lordship seems intrigued with the way the speaker is presenting himself on the dais. Courtclerk puts out a “5 minutes left” card. Speaker seems to be more ‘confident’ than ever. His charm isn’t working, sadly. The clerk holds out the sign again. All efforts, all expectations in vain. Finally, the bench stops the speaker and he returns to his place.

SPEAKER 1 (Opposing Party): (1:10 PM)

Speaker approaches the dais on behalf of the opposite party. He starts on a confident note but as soon as the judges start questioning him he loses his cool. All hell breaks loose on the poor speaker. He seems to be intimidated by all the questions coming to his way. The speaker is flushed with all the questions and has nothing more to say. The Judges finally ask him to conclude his arguments.

SPEAKER 2 (Opposing Party): (1:22 PM)

Speaker 2 takes over the dais explaining the issues introduced by speaker 1. Code Red! The speaker is inaudible from where we are at (stationed quite close since we are always watching! *cue villainous laughter*). The bench is also struggling with the softness of her speech. We are not sure whether her not being able to substantially convey her arguments is funnier or the Judge enjoying her misery.

REBUTTAL (Informants): (1:35 PM)

As soon as the speaker is up, the judges are ready with a sarcastic remark, stating that a rebuttal is not even needed but he can proceed if he wants to (huehuehue, funny, lol). The opposing party seems to have dug their own graves. The bench breaks in and asks for concise rebuttals. The bench seems to be highly impressed with the speaker and the proceedings are done and dusted.

Prelims Round 1

Courtroom no.: 1

T.C. 11 (Informant)  Vs. T.C. 08 (Opposing Party)

It’s a fine morning and the teams have arrived. The session is about to begin. The teams are up for a massive tussle of arguments and heated allegations. The courtroom is set and the arrival of the judges is much awaited. 

One of the judges has arrived and the session is about to begin. Tension mounts as the arguments are being discussed and structured by the respective teams. The constant muttering of teams reverberates in the room. The arrival of the second judge of the bench is still pending.

The judges’ bench is complete and the teams wish each other good luck. May the odds be with them!


The judges’ bench, with utter precision, is going through the memos presented by the teams.

Speaker 1 (Informant): 12:31 P.M.   

The speaker approaches the dais on behalf of the informants, seeking permission to speak for 16 minutes. The facts are stated by the speaker with much confidence and the judges seem to take note of everything. The agent now seeks permission for the appeals. The agent backs the arguments with rationale and documented cases. 

The speaker appears fairly self-assured. The agent confidently battles the onslaught of questions thrown at her by the bench. The judges seem to take her answers into consideration but still are not very keen on accepting her arguments. A personal request to the judges: It’s 2019, the year of our Lord and Saviour Harry Styles and we accept everyone. Amen!

The agent is very staunch in her approach and seems to be very precise and thorough with her citations and arguments. The agent speaks with speed as fast as lightening McQueen. The judges time and again lose track of the data put forth by her. The agent seeks an extension of two minutes. The case revolves around apps and their respective usage, all I think about is the people using Tik Tok *cringe*! The agent keeps seeking extensions, putting the court clerk into a deep existential crisis and all she can think about is “Am I a joke to you?” The agent rests her case.

Speaker 2 (Informant): (12:53 P.M.)

The speaker approaches the dais with the permission of the bench. The researcher time and again goes around to submit evidence and cited cases and has turned the courtroom into a park: the jogging around is enough to make us feel tired vicariously. “Data is an essential facility,” truer words have never been spoken. We relate wholeheartedly. Can we induct this person as an honorary PR Committee member? Both the speakers seem to be very much inspired by Lightning McQueen (At this point PR Committee has to hold back our extremely enthusiastic scribe). 

The term database is being constantly used in the speeches, and the students of HNLU have tears rolling down their cheeks *wipes a tear*. The counsel again seeks an extension and the court clerk is confused. The researcher again starts his usual jog around the court. The speech of the speaker 2 is nothing but a seemingly difficult tongue twister. The bench is cherrypicking the mistakes and the flaws in the memo of the counsel incorporate. The agent finally rests her case. We are still caught up in tongue twisters (Lord help us).

Speaker 1 (Opposing Party):  01:23 P.M.

The speaker expedites his structure of arguments, tracing the sections necessary for his case. The bench asks the speaker to clarify his statement of jurisdiction. The confusion about the statement of jurisdiction seems to mount. To deal with the confusion the judges have asked the 2nd speaker to approach the dais. The agent does not seem very confident and seems to get under the pressure of the intimidating environment. Soon after stepping up, the agent collects himself and rises up from the ashes of underconfidence like a majestic phoenix *cheers and claps*. 

The HNMCC proposition has created the most awaited crossover of multiple fandoms. Wattpad is quacking!  Speaker asks for a three-minute extension which is granted. He wraps everything up and ends it with a cursory bow.

Speaker 2 (Opposing Party): 01:56 P.M.

The speaker approaches the dais and continues with the case advanced by his fellow agent. A lot of questions are now being thrown at the agent and he is fairly rational and confident in his approach of battling the questions advanced by the bench. The examples expedited by the agent are unable to uphold his case but he hangs on to them with his life. Speaker looks confused with his material. The speaker asks for an extension and is granted the same. The agent went on to make a rookie mistake amidst all chaos (get your straight, bud). 

Clasp your hands, Ladies and Gents, for it’s prayer time. 

REBUTTALS (02:14 P.M.)

The informants come up with a rebuttal against the opposing party on a point of paramount importance. The cited cases were also included in the rebuttals advanced by the informants. The opposing party agent now approaches the dais to cater to the rebuttals of the informant counsel. The opposing party very slyly dodges the rebuttals and seems to be fairly confident about the case of his counsel. 

Thus, on this note, the proceedings are done. 

Prelims Round 1

Courtroom no.: 8


The teams are settled in the courtroom eagerly waiting for the judges to arrive. The environment of the courtroom is light. With only a few minutes to go, the teams are busy with the final touches. This reminds me of the scene of examination when students try to cram as much as they can, moments just before the bell rings. 

The judges have arrived. Everybody rose to pay their respect to the judges.

Speaker 01 (Informant): 12:15 PM

The first speaker on behalf of the applicant, The Stark Industries, approaches the dais with the permission of the bench. The agent explains the facts of the case to the judges. The agents are in turn questioned about the relevant market of the product. This is escalating sooner than any of us saw coming. The agent tries to answer the question but goes off-topic and the judges are not satisfied with this. Judges took the liberty to explain the same, and the agent can only question his existence. The agent doesn’t agree with the explanation given by the judges. Oops! Wrong move. At last, the agent gives in to the relentless questioning and agrees with the judges. The judges move on to ask the agent to put forward his best argument. The argument is stuck on one question and round and round the merry ride, we go!

Speaker 02 (Informant): 12:42 PM

The agent seeks permission from the judges and he is asked to continue the argument without any formality. The judges after listening to the argument, question the maintainability of the case. It’s really hard to tell what exactly is going on in the judges’ minds. A little slip by the agent, and he is caught by the judges, asking him if he was backtracking from his own words. Flustered, the agent tries his best. Personal request to please provide a tissue or a bucket for all the sweating going on here. 

The agent quickly regains his composure and gives a crystal clear answer to the question of maintainability. Court clerk rings the bell, the time is up. Prayer time. Both to the judges and To the Lord Above. The judges have taken a short non-commercial break. Hm. Some snacks would be nice while waiting. 

Speaker 01 (Opposing Party): 12:59 PM

The agent approaches the dais confidently and is quick with her arguments. Too quick for the liking of judges. The agent is hit by a barrage of questions. She is on fire with her arguments but the judges are not letting this go easily. They continue questioning every part of her argument. She went on, and finally (FINALLY!) the judges were listening to her arguments rather questioning every word coming from her. She is so soft-spoken that we had to strain our ears to listen to her arguments (I can only imagine how hard it must be for the judges. College authorities, we plead you to provide loudspeakers from now on). 

Apart from that, she seems to be pretty good at her job. 

Speaker 02 (Opposing Party): 1:16 PM

The agent starts with the explanation of the issues dealt with by her predecessor and smartly dodged the questions by providing relevant cases and definitions. Her arguments are so well structured that this was putting the judges at a loss as they could not question her anymore. The judges were flabbergasted by her skills of argumentation. The agent showed her dexterity while putting forward her arguments.

The court clerk rings the bell showing the end of time but the judges were so involved in the proceedings that they gave her extra 2 minutes to conclude her arguments, ignoring the clerk. The judges remind of the legendary words of Mr. Mukesh Ambani when he was interviewed by a journalist and he sweetly said: “main aapko seriously nahi leta”. 


The informant starts with the rebuttals, the speaker cited a case which confused the judges and they started questioning the agent regarding the same. The opposing party was unable to catch what the informant was trying to say. Finally, after understanding the informant’s points the opposing party put forward their points and the proceedings were concluded.

Prelims Round 1 (12:45 - 14:15)

Courtroom No.6

T 05 (Informant) v. T 14 (Opposing Party)

The court’s atmosphere buzzes with tension and anxiety as both the parties prepare to present their cases.


The first speaker on behalf of the informant approaches the dais with the permission of the bench. The bench asks the speaker to state the facts of the dispute and the speaker obliges.

The judges ask the counsel to elucidate more on the facts. The judges seek clarification regarding the facts and our lovely speaker seems perplexed. The judges ask the speaker to address them as “your ladyship”, seemingly having no interest in gender restrictions. The judges seek clarification on various points and ask the speaker about the existence of vertical restraint in the case to which the counsel answers satisfactorily.

The judges again question the counsel regarding the facts of the case. It seems that they are very much interested in knowing if the speaker himself has an idea about the facts or not. Oh! Well! The speaker tries to explain his stand by citing a prior example. The judges seem incensed at the ambiguous use of words by him.

The judges are firing questions at him one after another. He seems pretty nervous under the intense gaze of the bench. No judgement, I would have been as scared as him. The speaker concludes with a summary of his arguments.

T 05 SPEAKER 2 :

The counsel introduces himself as the second speaker. 

The judges ask him to clarify his stand, the counsel is going through the pages and is trying to figure out what’s relevant and what isn’t. Lost, are we? The judges again ask him to explain the subject matter of the case, he stutters. He tries to impress the judges by citing examples and precedents but the judges seem unamused. The judges sigh, as the counsel keep repeating the same points. Sigh!

The counsel fails to establish the facts of the case and the judges seem tired since the counsel is failing time and again in understanding their questions.

The clerk of the court indicates that the time is over. The judges ask him as to how can he relate the facts and ask him to look through the case laws instead of just highlighting the observations. 

The judges seem as disappointed as the teachers who repeatedly ask the same question but then gradually become accustomed to getting the wrong answers by the student and feel sheer disappointment. It reminds me of school life, wasn’t it great? Enough monologue.

T 14 SPEAKER 1 :

Speaker approaches the dais on behalf of the opposing party. The counsel introduces the case. The counsel and judges are arguing about the case like two teenagers arguing what is better, Android or Apple? Well, its high time that we call Tim Cook and DJ Koh to the dais. 

The courtroom feels like a tech-hub with techies discussing about the competency of their devices. Do I have any clue about what is happening? No, readers, absolutely not.

The judges enquire if the counsel can provide how the points mentioned by her are relevant in this case to which she gives a lukewarm response. 

She took the whole duration to just address a single issue, it seems like a story of how technology conquers ultimately, without explicitly mentioning the conclusion since the first issue itself is “never-ending”. Will the counsel succeed in mentioning the other issues? Keep reading, ‘cause I am having some trust issues.

Well, she had to sum up the other issues as the judges grew impatient and reminded her about the time. So, the story ended without a proper conclusion. 

T 14 SPEAKER 2 : 

The counsel approaches the dais, brimming with confidence. She is trying to present her case in the best possible manner but the judges seem uninterested. 

This case involving, “Stark Industries”, seems more like an Avengers movie, with all its twists and turns and the courtroom feels like a warzone. Endgame? You bet.

The bench further asks her to describe the facts of the case clearly as if the first speaker’s clarifications weren’t enough. She is firm and confident while arguing and stating her arguments. She concludes and sums her case up.


Informants start with the rebuttals. He presents his rebuttals on an issue by issue basis. The Opponent Party’s speaker begins her rebuttal by stating the factual discrepancies presented by the Informants. She firmly establishes the superiority of her arguments. And now I declare the round over.

Preliminary Round 1

Courtroom No. 11

Informant (TC 15) v. Opposing party (TC 02)

TC15, Speaker 1 (12:35 PM)

The first speaker on behalf of informants approaches the dais with the permission of the bench and seeks permission to address the bench as Their Lordships. The speaker started with stating the facts but the judges are more concerned with the scheme of their arguments. The speaker was rigorously questioned by the bench on the basic crux of the problem. The bench is trying to unnerve the speaker but she confidently answered the questions and proceeding with the issues. Researcher of the team is attentive and is constantly passing chits to help her out however the judges do not seem satisfied. She was subject to yet another round of questioning and the judges seem vexed with  the wrong understanding of the provision mentioned in the memorial. Ohh, times up! But the speaker continues to speak trying her level best to satisfy the judges. 

TC 15, Speaker 2 (1:15 PM)

The speaker approached the dais with the permission of the bench and stated the issues to be covered by him. Even before he could complete the very first sentence, he was attacked by questions related to certain provisions, which he was not aware of.  The bench is not giving any opportunity to him and completely rejecting the basis of the argument, asking him for a precedent supporting his argument. Referring to a judgment the speaker proceeded but was once again interrupted by the bench with yet another round of questions. With 10 min extension allowed to the speaker, he was asked to conclude crisply. After both the speakers were done with their arguments, the bench gave a chance to the researcher to elaborate on any points just to bring clarity and she was able to satisfy them with regard to one of the issues.

TC 02,  Speaker 1 (1:50 PM)

Speaker approaches the dais with the permission of the bench. She was asked to directly brief their version of the facts and explain what portion of the facts favours their stand. After stating the facts, she confidently moved to the issues and again faced the rapid-fire round. Speaker very smoothly and calmly handling the attack, proceeded with the arguments. She started clearing the doubts of the bench and tried to proceed, but then came the mooter’s enemy, time. 

TC 02, Speaker 2 (2:35 PM)

The speaker started with referring to himself as ‘agent’, which aroused the curiosity of the judges as to the use of the word, instructing him to use ‘advocate’ instead. Oh! Yet another mistake by the speaker. He wrongly mentioned the court as one which no longer exists. Leaving the judges and everybody in the court confused, he continued. The judges rapid questioning and his prompt answers turned out to be interesting for everybody. With paucity of time, he was asked to conclude quickly.

Not allowing the prayer to be recited due to constraints of time, the round was wrapped up.

Round 1

Courtroom no. - 07

12:05 - The participants are here but the Judges are still awaited. The tension in the room is palpable. The participants are a bit nervous engaged in deep discussions and struggling with calming themselves.

12:15 - The tension seems to rise high with every passing minute in the room. Several nervous looks have been exchanged by the parties. The anticipation of the teams is infectious and I am extremely excited about what’s going to happen.

12:17 - The judges arrive and we all stand as a mark of respect. They indulge in discussion with court clerk. Oh! Judges are leaving! Wait what is happening! IS THERE NO COMPETITION? IS IT ALL JUST A HOAX?! Oh wait! turns out they just entered the wrong courtroom. Phew! I am relieved to know that my whole life isn’t a lie. Perhaps we should have provided the Marauders Map (pun intended) in the judges kit. The participants give a sigh of relief; they can continue their deep discussion now.

12:23  The honourable judges arrive.

T 19 (Informant)  v. T20 (Opposing Party)

T19, Speaker 1 (Informant)  12:25 - The speaker approaches the dias with the permission of judges. He starts explaining the facts but is interrupted midway as the judges ask him to explain Jurisdiction. Speaker seems well versed with the facts. Judges are satisfied with the issues presented and direct the speaker to deal with the first issue. He is interrupted to clarify the time distribution, he seems baffled and can’t provide the time distribution. The judges fire a volley of questions to the speaker. The speaker tries to be calm; trying hard to satisfy judges with his contentions but the questions are hurdles in an Olympic hurdle race and he is an amateur runner. the judges do not seem pleased. He is questioned on the proposition; the question was answered, but by judges. I always thought that the participants are supposed to answer the questions but I am probably just out of touch with the latest trends in mooting. The judges seem to be thinking along the same lines and there is an awkward silence in the mute court.

The speaker is frequently addressing the bench to keep the judges’ attention but it doesn't seem to work much. The speaker is trying to supplement his arguments with several documents but the judges fire back with a crisp question that makes the speaker even more nervous. He is trying hard to maintain composure, but is unable to satisfy the judges. Speaker seeks a time extension which is promptly granted by the judges. He gathers himself and starts speaking again, but stumbles again. He requests some more time. His morale is boosted as he is given more time than requested but still seems to be unable to convince the bench.

T 19, Speaker 2 12:47

The speaker seems confident as she approaches the dias (Is she in for a rude awakening? We’ll see.), she puts forward her arguments smoothly without interjection from judges. She seems to be well versed and prepared  to put opponents under the fire.

The first question is answered easily. If I were Dumbledore some brownie points for the clipped and crisp manner of presenting arguments and answering the questions.  The sound of a bell seems to shake her a bit and her voice becomes low. She manages to maintain eye contact with the judges  in order to keep their attention. Judges interject constantly but seem satisfied with the points presented. It seems we have a formidable speaker on the podium who can make the opponents mull over their fate. She seeks an extension of time to conclude her arguments, which is granted by the judges without any fuss. She manages to deal with all the questions and moves to the prayer. The bench seems to be satisfied.

T 20 , Speaker 1 (Opposing Party) 1:07

The speaker approaches the podium and delineates the issues she will be dealing with. She is loud and assertive and clear with the facts as it seems, Her arguments seems to be precise and well organized. She is interrupted midway and is helped by her co - agent. There’s an awkward silence and the sound emerging from Air Conditioners can be heard. The judges question her on her understanding of basics, which she manages to answer confidently. Meanwhile, Informants are lending their full attention on interjection articulating the points for rebuttals. The speaker can be lauded for her composure and is answering the interjections in a sophisticated manner. She manages to maintain her composure while answering the questions. This has a visible calming effect on her teammates. The team should be commended for the smooth coordination among themselves. She stumbles a little with the questions but has an upbeat spirit. The judges are quite understanding and ask the court clerk to grant her more time. The speaker moves with the second argument, not counting on the clock. She seeks for some more time to summarise and in the end the judges seem to be satisfied .

T 20, Speaker 2  1:25  As the speaker 2 approaches the dias, a few  nervous glances are exchanged by the speaker 1 and speaker 2. The bench asks her to jump to the arguments instantly unless she has something to add to the issues. She is interjected midway but deals with the question valiantly. The judges are jotting down some points on the sheet. I think she’s in for intense questioning. A serious discussion is going on among Informant team. The speaker seems to understand the question but takes a second before answering questions. The bench does not seem to be impressed with the answer. She isn’t discouraged and proceeds bravely to assert her contentions. The arguments are all set and everything is going systematically. Speaker is interjected with a question on the facts. She manages to pass with flying colours. The judges nod in appreciation and are satisfied with the arguments.

Rebuttal 1:41

Judges asked speaker not to give a speech and wrap up with your points. Speaker 1 channelises his energy well and refutes the contention of opponents satisfactorily.

Round 1

Courtroom no. - 07

12:05 - The participants are here but the Judges are still awaited. The tension in the room is palpable. The participants are a bit nervous engaged in deep discussions and struggling with calming themselves.

12:15 - The tension seems to rise high with every passing minute in the room. Several nervous looks have been exchanged by the parties. The anticipation of the teams is infectious and I am extremely excited about what’s going to happen.

12:17 - The judges arrive and we all stand as a mark of respect. They indulge in discussion with court clerk. Oh! Judges are leaving! Wait what is happening! IS THERE NO COMPETITION? IS IT ALL JUST A HOAX?! Oh wait! turns out they just entered the wrong courtroom. Phew! I am relieved to know that my whole life isn’t a lie. Perhaps we should have provided the Marauders Map (pun intended) in the judges kit. The participants give a sigh of relief; they can continue their deep discussion now.

12:23  The honourable judges arrive.

T 19 (Informant)  v. T20 (Opposing Party)

T19, Speaker 1 (Informant)  12:25 -

The speaker approaches the dias with the permission of judges. He starts explaining the facts but is interrupted midway as the judges ask him to explain Jurisdiction. Speaker seems well versed with the facts. Judges are satisfied with the issues presented and direct the speaker to deal with the first issue. He is interrupted to clarify the time distribution, he seems baffled and can’t provide the time distribution. The judges fire a volley of questions to the speaker. The speaker tries to be calm; trying hard to satisfy judges with his contentions but the questions are hurdles in an Olympic hurdle race and he is an amateur runner. the judges do not seem pleased. He is questioned on the proposition; the question was answered, but by judges. I always thought that the participants are supposed to answer the questions but I am probably just out of touch with the latest trends in mooting. The judges seem to be thinking along the same lines and there is an awkward silence in the mute court.

The speaker is frequently addressing the bench to keep the judges’ attention but it doesn't seem to work much. The speaker is trying to supplement his arguments with several documents but the judges fire back with a crisp question that makes the speaker even more nervous. He is trying hard to maintain composure, but is unable to satisfy the judges. Speaker seeks a time extension which is promptly granted by the judges. He gathers himself and starts speaking again, but stumbles again. He requests some more time. His morale is boosted as he is given more time than requested but still seems to be unable to convince the bench.

T 19, Speaker 2 12:47

The speaker seems confident as she approaches the dias (Is she in for a rude awakening? We’ll see.), she puts forward her arguments smoothly without interjection from judges. She seems to be well versed and prepared  to put opponents under the fire.

The first question is answered easily. If I were Dumbledore some brownie points for the clipped and crisp manner of presenting arguments and answering the questions.  The sound of a bell seems to shake her a bit and her voice becomes low. She manages to maintain eye contact with the judges  in order to keep their attention. Judges interject constantly but seem satisfied with the points presented. It seems we have a formidable speaker on the podium who can make the opponents mull over their fate. She seeks an extension of time to conclude her arguments, which is granted by the judges without any fuss. She manages to deal with all the questions and moves to the prayer. The bench seems to be satisfied.

T 20 , Speaker 1 (Opposing Party) 1:07

The speaker approaches the podium and delineates the issues she will be dealing with. She is loud and assertive and clear with the facts as it seems, Her arguments seems to be precise and well organized. She is interrupted midway and is helped by her co - agent. There’s an awkward silence and the sound emerging from Air Conditioners can be heard. The judges question her on her understanding of basics, which she manages to answer confidently. Meanwhile, Informants are lending their full attention on interjection articulating the points for rebuttals. The speaker can be lauded for her composure and is answering the interjections in a sophisticated manner. She manages to maintain her composure while answering the questions. This has a visible calming effect on her teammates. The team should be commended for the smooth coordination among themselves. She stumbles a little with the questions but has an upbeat spirit. The judges are quite understanding and ask the court clerk to grant her more time. The speaker moves with the second argument, not counting on the clock. She seeks for some more time to summarise and in the end the judges seem to be satisfied .

T 20, Speaker 2  1:25  

As the speaker 2 approaches the dias, a few  nervous glances are exchanged by the speaker 1 and speaker 2. The bench asks her to jump to the arguments instantly unless she has something to add to the issues. She is interjected midway but deals with the question valiantly. The judges are jotting down some points on the sheet. I think she’s in for intense questioning. A serious discussion is going on among Informant team. The speaker seems to understand the question but takes a second before answering questions. The bench does not seem to be impressed with the answer. She isn’t discouraged and proceeds bravely to assert her contentions. The arguments are all set and everything is going systematically. Speaker is interjected with a question on the facts. She manages to pass with flying colours. The judges nod in appreciation and are satisfied with the arguments.

Rebuttal 1:41

Judges asked speaker not to give a speech and wrap up with your points. Speaker 1 channelises his energy well and refutes the contention of opponents satisfactorily.

Prelims Round 1

Court Room No. 9 

T26  ( Informant ) v.  T01 ( Opposing Party )

11:48 pm 

The opposite party has arrived and are ready with their documents. The informants are yet to arrive. It seems as if they are yet to prepare. The environment is calm and silent. The informants have arrived but the proverbial fight is yet to begin. There are two speakers from the side of the opposite party but it seems that the informants are confident with one speaker itself. The judges are yet to arrive. The ACs in the room are working absolutely fine. Both sides look confident and I believe it would be a tough competition. The court clerk explains the rules of the moot to the teams. It is a bit boring inside evidenced by the fact that I have to talk about the ACs now. A lot of discussion is going on between the informants but the opposite party keeps quiet. Maybe they are reserving their energy to fight till the last.

12:08 pm

One of the judges have arrived but the wait for the other judge continues. A quiet and intense discussion is going on among the members of the opposing party. The court clerk is down to playing with the timer to kill time. Turns out the judge had entered a wrong court room. Professor McGonagall would transfigure into a map in this situation and I wholeheartedly agree with her solution.

 12:20 pm

The judges have arrived and the court clerk explains the documents to them. The participants keep standing not knowing whether they are allowed to sit or not (poor kids). The judges seem prepared to challenge the speakers. The judges are going through the documents and I don’t think anything is going to escape their notice. Here comes the photographer. She is clicking pictures of the scribe (I hope I am looking good lol). The informants seem tensed. There is constant flipping of pages. The court clerk seems disgruntled as the photographer is not interested in clicking her pictures. It finally starts - the court clerk asks informant to approach the dais.

T26, Speaker 01 ( Informant ) :12 :32 pm

The first speaker is tensed and is fumbling with words. She will be discussing issues 1 and 2 of the case on behalf of Stark Industries. She is struck with her first question as soon as she begins with her facts. She answers the question confidently and the judges seem satisfied. She continues with her facts and there goes another question. One of the judges seems more interested in asking questions while the other just listens. Though tensed first, she answers the questions confidently. She is getting into the flow but still dealing with the facts - time may get over soon. She starts her arguments but here come more questions. And alas.. She fails to answer the question appropriately. The speaker is asked about a judgement and it seems that she already knew that the question would be asked. The opposing party is working and making points. The other judge starts to ask questions and she is trying to answer. She is interrupted with another question while answering but it seems she isn’t prepared for this question. It seems that the preparation on the informant’s side is not enough to satisfy the judges expectations. The never ending questions frighten me as well. One of the judges tries to confuse her. The other judge asks her to move on to the next issue. She uses law to justify her argument. Only 5 minutes left of this intense mooting. It seems that the judges will never be satisfied. She mentions a typo error in her memorandum- what will this cost the team? The speaker is speaking on Intellectual Property Rights and connecting it with the moot case. The speaker is interrupted till the last with an array of questions. Time is up. But 2 extra minutes are given- whether the judges are pleased or they want to test her more is not clear. She gives the test well. Time is over again. The court clerk is totally ignored which is not a rarity. Maybe she has become a ghost not visible to the judges. It seems this will go on forever. At the last moment she is provided by a writeup by the other speaker but she does not use it. The other team member turned out to be a speaker. No researcher for their team.

T26, Speaker 02 ( Informant ) :1:03 pm

Speaker 2 starts speaking and deals with the remaining issue. Too much use of hand gestures. He uses an example to answer the question that has been asked. He is confident when he speaks and it looks like he has a stance. He is not well prepared to answer questions but tries to compensate by his confidence. He is not able to satisfy the judges with his answers and there is tension creeping in. He fumbles and apologises that he got confused while establishing his point.The opposite party keenly listens and observes. He increases his pace and puts his points forward as only 5 minutes are left. The judges are getting confused as to what he wants to say. He is emphasizing the points more and it seems that he will not be able to finish. 2 minutes left. The judges do not seem interested in asking questions anymore. Time is up but it is again ignored. He is given an extra 2 minutes to explain his points and summarize his arguments. He focuses on how B&B is at fault. At the last moment the judges try to confuse the speaker and he is trying to desperately answer the question. He forgot to give the prayer and is reminded given by the judges. Even after the prayer a question is asked. He tries to give more cases but is asked to leave . 

1:21 pm

The atmosphere is tense as judges are busy scoring now. The team members are looking at the judges with a hoping for good marks but the judges seemed hard to satisfy. Detailed analysis of the memorandum is being done. There is an atmosphere of suspense, tension and hope. They consult with the bare act - no mistake is allowed as  Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

T01, Speaker 01 (Opposite party ) 1:30 PM :

The speaker from the opposite party is called upon. She starts with a confident and clear approach. She is asked a question. But wait. She does not know which section is applicable. The judges seem dissatisfied. She is asked to move on to the facts directly. Even after this huge mistake she is determined and starts to confidently speak once again. The judges seem like they do not want to listen to the speaker. She is not allowed to explain her facts and is told to directly move onto the issues. She is not allowed to explain the first issue and is asked to move onto the next issue. The judges are subjecting her to intense questioning. The faces of the judges totally speaks out their dissatisfied minds. The speaker does not seem well prepared with her case. She fails to understand the question. It seems as if the informants are at a much better position. Only 10 minutes left. The speaker is asked whether she has even read the moot proposition. She is going against her arguments. She is not able to answer any questions and even if she answers she does not answer what is required. 5 minutes are left. The judges ask her whether she is of the opposing party or not. She keeps her confidence and calm and goes on with her arguments. Only 2 minutes are left and she has failed to enter into her main contention. She cites a case, the facts of which are totally different from the moot case. It seems to have become a one sided game and the informants must be having a fun time. It maybe difficult for the co-speaker to turn the game in their favour now.

T01, Speaker 02  2:00 PM ( Opposite party) :

The speaker is dealing with the remaining issues. She starts confidently but it is difficult to say what this will lead to. The speaker seems to lose her confidence when questioned.She starts answering and for the first time the judges seem satisfied with the opposite party.  She tries to correct a mistake made by the first speaker but gets confused herself. 10 minutes left. The judges are in a fix. Maybe the opposite party has come to confuse the judges of the law. I suppose that’s a good strategy - confuse the judges before they can confuse you. She doesn’t seem to know the facts but is arguing on the basis of sections. Confusion is on the rise. Chits are passed to the speaker but she is too perplexed to refer to it. At this point it’s not clear who is more confused - the judges, the participants or me. Only 2 minutes left. She has a better hold on the case than the first speaker. The judges are constantly being reminded of the lack of preparation on the opposite party’s side. Time is over once again. There is inconsistency in their arguments. They have even failed to refer to all the laws properly. She is finally asked to proceed with the prayer. The judges are extremely confused and ask her to leave. After listening to such confusing arguments  they seem extremely disappointed  and perplexed.    

Rebuttal 2:20 PM :

The first speaker from the informant side rebutts the arguments from the opposite party. They find this to be super easy. She talks about the mistake made with the time period. Rebuttals do not remain for more than 2 minutes.

Sur-rebuttal 2:30 PM : 

The opposite party sur-rebutts and points how the loopholes that they have mentioned appellants when it is not an appeal and they have not mentioned what is B&B. Many other loopholes are pointed out. They seem to have prepared themselves quite well for the sur-rebuttal. The speaker is again questioned at this point on their own issue but she fails to answer once again. 

2:35 pm

Time is over and the arguments stop. Everyone leaves their seats and walk out of the room. The judges continue with their scoring and the court clerk finally collects the documents. The judges leave their positions and walk out of the room. The intense discussion comes to an end with the final result to be decided.

Preliminary Round 2 LIVE BLOG


(15:00 PM- 16:17 PM)

Courtroom No. 13

T 16 (Informant) v. T 26 Opposing Party)

So, we are ready to bring to you the second round of this competition after a much-needed break.

T 16, SPEAKER 1:

(15:02 PM)

The speaker is stopped intermittently by the judges for a detailed explanation of the facts just mentioned by her. She tries to persuade the bench but isn’t able to create a very lasting impression on the judges. The speaker seems dumbfounded by the questions and the room is endowed with an eerie silence, it reminds me of how I silently sit in front of the teacher during vivas. The researcher though is diligently noting the important points and trying his best to help the speaker. Time runs out and the speaker leaves the dais agitated. It seems that it wasn’t their day as they seem very dissatisfied.   

T 16, SPEAKER 2: 

(15:17 PM)

Judges are again entering the realm of delirious food and are compelling everyone in the courtroom to question the fact if their tummies are truly satisfied with the food they just had. The judges ask for some legal backing of their argument and the same is met with awkward silence by the speaker. The silence of the lambs, anyone? With every further question, the volume of the speaker is depreciating. But she is being ably helped by the attentive researcher. I guess, the researcher is more frustrated than the speaker herself. Guys, the speaker’s voice is actually lulling me to much-needed sleep. But, sleep is for the weak. So, bear with me, readers. 

T 26, SPEAKER 1:

(15:40 PM)

The counsel comes with a very positive and confident demeanour and successfully translates it into his speech. The speaker continues to be unfazed by the bombardment of questions, and answers them calmly and effortlessly and maintains his equanimity. The speaker is extremely eloquent and the court is showing every sign of being satisfied. There is a concern regarding the jurisdiction of this court in this matter and the speaker is asked about the same. The speaker is now being asked to conclude. Right from the outset, the speaker looked skilled, practised and highly knowledgeable and was always in control. I think should keep my love for him aside and move on. Sad but life, guys.

T26, SPEAKER 2: 

(16:00 PM)

The co-counsel continues from the same note and is briefing the bench about the multifaceted concepts of her arguments. The speech is filled with various examples and makes more sense than the Salman Khan movies, personal opinion, fight me. The speaker, whom I might as well call Harry Potter because of his round glasses, though the courtroom isn’t as magical as the movie is very amusing. The arguments are now becoming too repetitive and redundant, and I’m desperately trying to sneak out some time to finish my very original projects, the miseries of law school life. Oh! Well! The court asks her to finish her arguments and leave.

The Informant side refuses for a rebuttal round and so the round ends.

Preliminary Round 2 

Courtroom 10

TC 12(Informant)    v.  TC 07(Opposing Party)

The Judges have arrived! Let's hope the odds are in favour of the best.

 Speaker 1 (Informant) (3:07 pm)

After taking the permission of the bench the speaker starts directly telling about the issues. The speaker is poised but bold. He seems a bit messed up as he is offered with a bunch of questions by the judges and he remains mum. The judges seem quite uninterested as the second judge is busy enjoying the sips of the CCD coffee. The first judge is back with all the energy after having lunch as she is here with a number of questions but the after the speaker standing mum for a while, the judges ask him to move forward with his contentions. With two minutes remaining the speaker is unable to even complete  his issues. He seems to be in a really tough spot, and in between all this the buzzer goes off and the time’s up but the courteous judge asks him take 5 more minutes. One of the informants is continuously putting his nose between the speaker’s contentions by passing him papers and written materials, which is making him fumble a lot.

 The fire of questions continues, it  seems that the beautiful lady sitting up there is not in the mood to let anything slide today. In between the arguments the court clerk seems irritated, as she has to constantly flash to signal the end of time, but no one pays attention to her.

Speaker 2 (Informant) (03:32 pm)

The speaker approaches the roster with the permission of the bench. He is interrupted in the starting itself as the judge asks . The judge smirks in amusement as the informants are not thorough with their research. The speaker is trying hard to convince the judges but it seems that his efforts are going in vain. After struggling with the questions put up by the judge the speaker meticulously looks through his through memo and sadly finds nothing. After all this the speaker everytime presents the half-baked answer so the bench had to upbraid the speaker for not directly addressing the questions. Few questions also put up on the memorandum but the speaker is again clueless, finally the researcher had to intimate the speaker about the same. 

Speaker 1 (Opposing Party) (03:48 pm):

The speaker humbly greets and seeks for the permission of the bench. The speaker is polite and organized with her facts but is not very expressive with her mannerisms. She seeks permission for the help of her co-counsel.  The judges seems confused about the issues discussed by the counsel and asks her not to go beyond the issues mentioned. The counsel states about the “efficiency clause” but the judge abruptly asks that if it is mentioned in the Competition Act and if it is relevant to the case. The counsel is cautioned by the judge to mention the relevant articles and clauses only. The speaker is facing some intense questioning regarding general principles of competition law, and the speaker seems to be on the back foot. Seeing the paucity of the time the judge asks the speaker to move forward with issue four. They aren’t satisfied with contentions of the speaker and rather seem bored. The judges again go to the fundamentals of the case by asking the type of agreement referred to, the speaker wrangling over the pages is still unable to answer the question effectively. 

Speaker 2 (Opposing Party) (04:08 pm)

At the very outset, the bench questions about the merits for holding the hearing. The speaker effectively answered the questions of the judge. Further with his contentions he addresses the flaws in the informant’s contentions. The judge bombarded with questions relating to the IPR laws. The speaker completed his contention soon and recites prayers.

Rebuttals (Informant) (04:20 pm)

The speaker starts to point out the flaws in the opposing party’s contentions. He supports his argument with precedents but seems less fervent.

Rebuttals (Opposing Party) (04:22 pm)

The judge asks for a bare act so that the previous contentions are made clear. The judges corrected the informants regarding their wrong previous contentions. The contentions from both the side seems boring. With everybody unsatisfied in the room, the judges wished both the parties best of luck and the proceedings dismissed.



3:00 PM - 4:28 PM



Speaker 01 3:00 PM 

The speaker seeks permission to approach the dais. His posture and hand movements shows his confidence.  His voice is loud and clear. The facts presented by him are lucid. He is interjected by the judges with a bunch of questions which he answers fluently. He moves to another one of his argument which deals with the situation of the marketplace. The intense round of questioning does not deter him. He continues with his convictions with grace. He refers to his notes from time to time to bolster his stand in the arguments. The tension is floating in the air. The speaker seems to be well versed with his issues. The speaker concludes his speech. The judges seems satisfied by the set of arguments. 

Speaker 02 3:27 PM

The speaker moves to the dais courteously, addressing the issues of the Stark Industries. He seems to understand the intricacies of the issues and the same is palpable in his voice. He sounds a bit nervous but presents his convictions in an organised manner. The arguments do not waver off and are pertinent. He states the sections and case law to provide additional support to his facts. The researcher and the other speakers in the courtroom are all ears so as to not miss any crucial information in the facts. Despite faltering in between the sentences, the speaker tries his best to keep up with the questions. He is gesticulating frantically to indicate the gravity of the facts. He also talks about the consequences of the marketplace and how it is impacting the case. The speaker hurries to conclude his arguments as time is running out swiftly. 


Speaker 01 3:44 PM

The speaker addresses the bench as ‘Your Lordship’ and seeks permission to appear on the dais. The speaker’s voice exudes a lot of confidence. The speaker is interrupted in the initial minutes of her speech with questions. She is polite and respectful at all times. She cites cases and real time examples to further shore up the arguments. She also gives numerous facts which indicate her well-preparedness. She refers to the notes which he has kept handy. An array of questions are being hurled at her but she is unfazed by it. Her speech is nicely structured. The researcher of the team seems anxious.  She swiftly moves to another argument while the time is slipping out of hand. She wraps up her arguments by dismissing other claims. She calls the other speaker to approach the dias. 

SPEAKER 02 4:03 PM 

The second speaker appears to the dais after seeking permission to which the judges oblige readily. He isn’t interrupted by the judges in the first three minutes of his speech. The speaker hasn’t faltered in his words till now. He seems to choose his words wisely. He refers to his exhaustive notes which are properly highlighted and bookmarked while fumbling with a pen which displays his nervousness. And here comes another series of questions by the judges! The judges leave no stone unturned to shoot perplexing questions at the speaker. The speaker shows impressive qualities of persistence and perseverance. The speaker is soft spoken yet eloquent. His arguments are nicely structured. 

The speaker provides a plausible explanation to answer the questions thrown at him by the judges.  His puts an end to his argument by pointing out the highlighted points. The speaker is generous with use of gestures.. 

Rebuttal (TC 18) 4:20 PM 

Two minutes are given by the bench for a round of rebuttal. Speaker 1 from the informant’s side approaches the dais. The speaker tackles the issues concisely, taking them one at a time.  

Rebuttal (TC 06) 4:24 PM 

Speaker 1 from the opponent party comes to the dais to put forward the points of her speech. The speaker deftly concludes her rebuttals. The round comes to an end. 

The parties are asked to leave the courtroom. The judges, after a lot of careful consideration, jot down the scores of the respective teams.

Prelims Round 2

T 21 v. T 22

(15:05 PM - 16:10 PM)

Court Room no.12

T - 21, Speaker 1 (Informant) 

(15:05 PM)

The speaker is constantly being asked about the facts. I love how the judges are in love with the facts. The speaker seems nervous as the interrogation about the laws and facts continues. The court clerk reported the speaker is in the final two minutes. The speaker tries his best to defend his argument and the researcher tirelessly passes the notes to the speaker to support his claim. Court clerk time and again tells the speaker to stop, but the judges grant him 5 more minutes. The judges finally ask the speaker to leave the dais, after ignoring the almost vegetative presence of the court clerk.

T- 21, Speaker 2 (Informant)

(15:23 PM)

The speaker is asked to dress properly. Is it me or everyone is forgetting the dress code for a moot today? The speaker is very nervous and is stammering. The speaker starts illustrating the facts of the case. The researcher, unhappy with the speaker, tries to prompt some hints from behind. He seems frustrated after being ignored and tries to pass notes after notes to get the attention of the speaker, but the speaker doesn’t pay heed to him. The court clerk shows the time to be 2 minutes to the end. The speaker is questioned about the laws relating to the case and the facts. The speaker, further presenting his final argument, tries to convince the court and summarises it. And the speaker leaves the roster, deeming it his privilege to have been permitted to address the bench.

T - 22, Speaker 1 (Opponent Party)

(15:39 PM)

The speaker is asked to present a copy of the moot court rules. Why you may ask. The speaker isn’t wearing a tie. How is everyone forgetting the dress code! The speaker says that he feels suffocated in the tie, makes me think of how suffocated I feel in this tense room. The judges mock him, should I be surprised? The speaker begins and explains the issue to the bench. As he proceeds, he is hit with a volley of questions, which the speaker tries to answer confidently. The judges bashed the speaker as he proceeded with the wrong facts. The speaker still tries to defend himself. Nice try, but seriously? The judges asked the speaker to switch to another argument and the court clerk signaled the speaker about the last 2 minutes left. After a few more words from the speaker, the court clerk shows the sign for time out. He leaves the dais.

T-22 speaker 2 (Opponent Party)

(15:58 PM)

The speaker is allowed to proceed towards the arguments. He is asked about the intricacies involved in the issue they raised. The bench interrogates the speaker continuously. The speaker remains confident and firm while arguing and takes the support of the proposition to support his claims. The court clerk shows the running time to be 2 minutes to the end. The judges keep on asking the speaker more about the laws and the facts related to the case, generalising it in the day to day life, as the speaker tries his best to convince the bench. The time runs out and the court clerk seems irritated time and again telling the speakers to stop but none pays attention to him. The judges asked the team members to recite their prayer. 


(16:10 PM)

The Informants denies the rebuttal. And the proceeding is wrapped up.

Prelims round 2 

(15:10 PM - 16: 17 PM)

Courtroom No. 6

TC 01 (Informant) v. TC 04 (Opposing Party) 

The judges have arrived and are having a glance at the documents provided by the court clerk.

T 01 - SPEAKER 1 :

(15:15 PM)

The counsel starts with seeking permission from the judges. She takes an unusual oath. The judges are surprised. I think we are really not living up with the new trends. The judges and I need to get our game up, guys. I feel old. She composes herself but still fumbles with her points. The judges repeatedly interrupt her with queries related to the subject matter of the case. They aren’t satisfied with her explanation of the subject matter of the case, it seems like she’ll have to pull her socks up and get her facts straight. The bench continues bombarding her with questions but she still tries to answer. It seems like we have a braveheart on the field, guys! She summarizes her case, with utter disappointment since the judges don’t seem satisfied with her contentions. I can see the gloomy faces on the Informant’s side, the depressing scene makes me feels as if India just lost a match against Pakistan.

T 01 -  SPEAKER 2 :

(15:30 PM)

The speaker begins her arguments. She tries to establish the facts of the case in her favor but the judges don’t seem satisfied. They feel that she is misleading them. Trust issues? It feels like the argument is Timbuktu, it is in the middle of nowhere and the judges feel that it is baseless. She seems perplexed and her contentions are not lucid. She fails to draw a connection between the pertinent facts of the case and the application of the desired law. Judges are still unconvinced and they said that they don’t care about the facts that are being mentioned by her. The counsel seems meek and disappointed. She fails to answer the questions asked by them. She seems frustrated almost to the point of crying. She finally summarizes her case.

T 04 - SPEAKER 1 :

(15:50 PM)

The speaker is a little lost in herself. She seems nervous. The judges ask her to take a minute to think before speaking as she fumbles. Ah! The courtroom is pretty tense right now. It seems like ISRO is waiting to recover its connection with Chandrayaan. The pressure is nerve-wracking, it can be easily cut with a knife. The counsel is in a lot of pressure and I feel sympathy for her but the scribe in me has to write and so, I write. She somehow manages to amble through her speech but the judges are still unconvinced. She fails to understand further queries of the judges and the discussion goes on in a loop for a while. She wraps as the clock dies on her but the judges remain dissatisfied. 

T 04 - SPEAKER 2 :

(16:10 PM)

The speaker is loud with her arguments and she speaks very fast. She seems confident and crisp in her arguments. She says that the judges and the people come under the ambit of the same copyright law to which the judges smile, their smiles feel like the sight of an Oasis, it’s quite relieving to see. However, She fails to answer a question asked by the judges, losing some brownie points. She ends her argument, and seems quite satisfied with her performance and by the looks of it, the judges seem quite satisfied too.

No rebuttal round follows and the rounds end.

Prelims Round 2

Courtroom No. 2

TC 09 (Informant) v. TC 10 (Opposing Party)

TC 09, Speaker 1: 3:10 PM

The speaker is confident and the judges are refreshed after lunch. It is time for Grilling Session Season 2. The speaker is defending his arguments like Karan Johar defending nepotism. The speaker knows all the sections of the act but the judges are interested in the relation to facts, I am reminded of some particularly tricky end semester exams. Time management might prove to be an issue. The speaker is the physical manifestation of the slow-motion feature and the bench is in danger of being lulled to sleep. The court clerk belatedly realises that time is already over and I’m tempted to say, dude, you had one job!

TC 09, Speaker 2: 3:32 PM

This speaker is a veteran, he knows how to handle the judges. He has come prepared for the battle in front of him. The Judges try to render his cases irrelevant, but he doesn’t back down. The bench has him slightly at a loss with regards to jurisdiction. The arena of the duel has shifted to the facts alone. The bench seems quite satisfied with the speaker’s submissions, which he delivers precisely and efficiently. All concerns regarding time are thrown out of the window as the speaker manages to continue for an extra ten minutes. 

TC 10, Speaker 1: 3.52 PM

The team is not the best at research but good at establishing the facts. Although the facts may be established, assertions in the absence of characterizations will obviously fall flat on their face. The judges look more concerned than the teams themselves. The bench just decried the speaker’s reasoning as ‘bogus’! That certainly must have been a blow. Clearly HNMCC is not for the faint of heart!

TC 10, Speaker 2: 4:02 PM

This speaker is covering up for the previous one, but not particularly successfully. The judges seemed to have imbibed the unofficial HNLU motto, “light lete hai.” They have given up on determining the stand taken by the team and are just enjoying the mooting exercise. The speaker has been forced to reevaluate the issues framed and her existence in toto.I wonder who is more desperately in need of answers, the speakers or the bench. 

There were no rebuttals.

Prelims Round 2

Courtroom No. 3

TC 27 (Informant)  v.TC 05 (Opposing Party)

TC 27, Speaker 1 3:15 PM

The first speaker starts by introducing herself. She is quite nervous and is comforted by the judges who offered her a cool drink of water. The speaker is asked by judges to clarify herself on certain issues but she is unable to. Unable to tackle the questions imposed by judges she is asked to hand over the dais to co-counsel. If we are to believe the precedent set by Akshay Kumar in Jolly LLB., an ignominious retreat is not necessarily a sign of defeat.

TC 27, Speaker 2 3:20 PM

With the expectation of settling the mix-ups made by his co-counsel, speaker approaches the dais. Judges expect some logical argumentation from the speaker. He is not confident enough in his speech. The judges further pose various questions that the speaker is unable to answer in a satisfactory way.  Counsel is falling short of words. Judges are yet not dazzled and they are in no mood of releasing the speaker  without getting an adequate explanation.
However, the speaker ends his contention and his teammate neglects to present the  prayer.

TC 05, Speaker 1 3:40 PM

Counsel approaches the dais and starts with the contention. Sounding confident and fluent by his style of speech, he is nevertheless interrupted by the judges examining his understanding of some fundamental issues in the proposition.  Attempting to proceed with his speech he is further questioned on  points of law. Counsel is presenting obscure reports to support his argument. He sites a few cases which leads to another round of questioning. He is trying to gain confidence of judges with the help of his detailed compendium. Contention is dealt well in time and podium is handed over to co-counsel. 

TC 05, Speaker 2 4:00 PM 
Counsel seeks permission to approach the dais. He starts with his contention, fumbling slightly. Judges are quick to notice his body language and start with the questions. He informs the bench that he is not in agreement with his co-counsel on certain issues. This leaves the judges a bit befuddled but they allow him to proceed. The bench isn’t particularly impressed by the counsel’s degree of preparation. Some more queries are posed by the judges and the speaker is unfortunately unable to answer and is forced to conclude. Counsel states the prayer.

No rebuttals took place.

Prelims Round 2

Courtroom no.: 1

T.C. 13 (Informant)  Vs. T.C. 25 (Opposing Party)

Speaker 1 (Informant): 03:00 P.M.

The case is incepted with eloquence. The counsel from the informant side is very confident. He has an air of regal self-assurance while presenting the facts of his case. The facts are well structured. Sigh, impermanence is the law of the universe. The speaker is slightly derailed from his stance. The agent fumbles and his face falls, revealing faults in his case. He is struggling with the sections of the competition act and seems confused. He is a victim of several spoonerisms and is in a perpetually flustered state. The judges are seemingly very intimidating towards the agent, but seeing the sudden nervousness on his face, they ease up a little. The speaker becomes underconfident with time. The judges have adopted a very lenient tone, I wish I had teachers like these, who would make things easier for me *weeps*. The speaker is steadily regaining his confidence. Extension for two minutes requested. 

Speaker 2 (Informants): 03:37 P.M.    

The second speaker has now approached the dais with the permission of the bench and has the burden to regain the confidence of the bench. The questions posed by the bench in front of the speaker are confidently dealt by her. Unfortunately, she got confused by the questions and is struggling with her arguments. The arguments are going haywire, and its a losing battle at this point. She is unable to argue and isn’t justifying her case. Better luck next time!

Speaker 1 (Opposing Party): 03:45 P.M. 

The agent approaches the dais and is seemingly very articulate. She started with an assumption that the bench would already be well versed with the facts of the case, however, the bench told her to again elaborate on the facts. The speaker is firm in her approach and is able to dodge all the queries by the bench very easily and rationally. She has her arguments backed up with extensive research and cited cases. The agent faces a dilemma while recalling her citations. Sis, it’s fine to make such mistakes, cést la vie, so chill! 

Agent pleads for a five-minute extension but the bench was reluctant. It’s reminiscent of bargaining between our moms and the grocer. After a slight to and fro, the speaker was able to convince the bench.

Speaker 2 (Opposing Party): 04:07 P.M.

The agent has a bold voice and commands the attention of everyone in the courtroom. He has an amalgamation of well-structured and rational arguments plus a voice like Bachchan Ji. The case is well handled by him and is able to draw everyone into it. Now, the judges are firing questions after question at the agent but he is able to navigate these dangerous waters efficiently (Cheers and Hoots)! 

A tussle ensues, but the speaker has a sound logic behind all his arguments and concludes his arguments elegantly. 

No rebuttals follow. Looks like everyone is eager for a break. This concludes the prelims rounds.

Prelims round 2

Court Room: 8


Speaker 01 (Informant): 3:22 PM

The speaker approaches the dais and introduces herself and her teammates. At the very beginning, a question has been raised on the very relevance of the sections and precedents used by the informants. The judges again put forward the question of what relevant market is. To make her way out of this situation the agent started reading her memo. But the judges were not keen on hearing the memo verbatim. They asserted that they are provided with the agent’s memo and were capable enough to read what was submitted. She’s eager to end her arguments but to her dismay, she cannot as the judges are not leaving any chance of questioning. 

After a seemingly endless to and fro, the agent and the judges are finally on the same page. 

The photographer is here both and it’s clear that both the teams eagerly want to pose but unfortunately, formality is killing them.

Speaker 02 (Informant): 3:46 PM

Following her predecessor, the agent puts forward her arguments. Armed with a confident stature, she was going great until the question of relevancy of the case came in the frame. Her face falls. The speaker is not able to persuade the judges. The questioning session is not stopping. The authority of the court has been questioned. The agent was not able to answer judges questions hence she directly jumped to the prayer.

Speaker 01 (Opposing Party): 4:03

The agent jumped to the issues directly. The judges are already showing agreement to the agents arguments. The agent looks pretty confident. She’s providing witty arguments. At last the questioning mode of the judges is on. The agent is smart enough to answer the judges questions. The judges seem impressed by the oratory skills of the agent. The judges are doing whatever they can to break the confidence of the speaker but she too hard to break.

She rested her arguments and requested her council to take the dias.

Speaker 02 (Opposing Party): 4:19

The judge seems to be angry with the speaker as if he had done something to him. The agent spoke just one line and he was questioned about the maintainability of the case. The agent requests the judges to go through the competition act,  but they were not provided with the same.  Finally the agent is catching pace with his arguments, the researcher is trying her level best to save the agent from the stones of questions thrown at him by the judges.

The agent cited the case which was according to the judges a century old. But i think jurisprudence didn’t even existed during that time. Both the judges had a good laugh this lightened the tense environment.


The informant side didn’t want to rebut but the opposing side was way too much eager to rebut. But they were asked to take a chill pill.

Prelims 2

Court room no 9

T14 ( informant)v. T24( opposite party)


The mooting has started. The judges have arrived and the first speaker from the informant side has claimed her position on the dias.


T14( speaker 1 )( informant )

The first speaker on the informant side presents her arguments confidently. She has a clear voice and presents her stance with full belief and force. The judges begin asking her questions about sections and cases referred in her memorandum. She is able to answer those. The judges are not satisfied with the answer and ask her to explain it more. The photographer has just arrived and a photo session is going on side by side. The speaker keeps her calm and tries to answer but not to the judges satisfaction. Both the judges start to grill the speaker and the speaker answers her best. She refers to the compendium to prove her arguments. Only 5 minutes left now but the judges do not allow the speaker to move on to her next arguments before answering the questions asked to their satisfaction. She finally moves on and proceeds with her contentions. The opposite party look at their documents  while listening to the speaker. Time is over but the speaker keeps talking. The court clerk seems frustrated as neither the judges nor the speakers seem to care about the time. The speaker is grilled on a particular word that they use. The judges and the speaker are reminded once again of the time. The co-speaker listens carefully to the judges so that he can present their best arguments. The speaker uses a lot of gestures to explain the arguments which is distracting. The judges tell the speaker to put forward the remaining contentions quickly. She is again questioned on this point. The speaker is given more time than the usual which seems unfair. The face of the court clerk is pale and she realises that there is no use of reminding the judges of the time. The speaker finally ends her arguments and the co-speaker enters the dias.


T14( speaker 2 ) ( informant )

The speaker starts her arguments before the time has started. She presents the arguments powerfully. She keeps referring the judges to the memorandum. The speaker, like her co-speaker, uses the compendium efficiently and to her benefit. She is asked a question at this point and she answers it satisfactorily. Fluency of the speaker is strong which adds to the arguments placed. The judges listen to the speaker. She talks about certain parameters and is asked about a landmark case at this point which is answered with less confidence. 5 minutes are left but it seems the speaker will have time to finish her arguments. Until now there weren’t many questions but now she is being questioned on one point on different parameters. 2 minutes are left when the speaker proceeds to the next issue. Thereafter she is asked to proceed with the next issue and the time is over. The speaker is well versed with the sections concerned with the moot problem and she answers all the questions efficiently. The judges seem convinced with the speaker’s arguments and she finally delivers her prayer for relief. She is questioned whether she would ask for any compensation and the section under which the order is seeked.


The judges start scoring the informant side. They seem pretty convinced and satisfied from their arguments


T24( Speaker 1 ) ( opposite party )

The first speaker introduces the issues that he and his co-speaker will deal with i.e. issue 1 and 2 and the co-speaker the remaining issues. He is then asked about the jurisdiction of the present case which he answers efficiently. He then proceeds with his first issue which is interrupted by a short discussion between the judges. He uses case laws to prove his argument. It seems that it will be a tough fight from the way he speaks. The judges allow the speaker to present his arguments without interjecting. He seems to have good speaking skills and explains the issues giving proper emphasis on every point. His flow is stopped and he is questioned at this point. He starts to answer the question but is questioned on one point in between. He then refers to the compendium to answer the question. His use of cases and examples are well justified. Thereafter he proceeds onto the next issue. 5 minutes are left. His speech is fluent and this helps him to proceed with his arguments without fumbling. He has good control over the compendium. He is questioned again and answers well. Time is over but the speaker continues. After some time he is stopped and asked to go back.


T24( Speaker 2 ) ( opposite party )

The second speaker proceeds with the arguments of the 3rd and 4th issues. He is confident and composed. He presents his arguments in a similar way as his co-speaker by referring to examples and the compendium. Questions are thrown at him and he is able to answer them well. The opposite party has made good use of cases and illustrations which is also seen in the current speaker. The court clerk is dumbstruck and looks frustrated from the complex arguments. The judges repeatedly question him and certain chits are passed from his team members to help him out. He then proceeds onto the next issue and talks about. 5 minutes are left. He clearly points out the sections that are used. He proceeds on to his final argument and contends that CCW should not grant access to database to the informant. He asks to give the prayer of relief and after an astutely answered question he presents the prayer before the judges. The judges seem convinced. The judges ask what relief or compensation they want and the team answers.

4:23 pm ( Rebuttals )

The informants move forward with their rebuttals. Their jotting of points during the arguments of the opposite party has helped them in efficiently rebutting certain points of the opposite party. This rebuttal is given by the first speaker who steadily rebuts the points. A total of five questions were asked by the informant.

4:26pm ( Sur- Rebuttals )

The opposite party rises quickly to defend their position. The first speaker from the opposite party efficiently defends all the arguments raised and does not fumble at all which shows his preparation for the moot. The time is over and the sur-rebuttals end without any further questions being asked.

4:29 pm

The moot ends and the judges say that arguments from both sides were good. Final scoring takes place after the participants have left in the hope that the result is on their side. The judges say that both the teams had good knowledge of the moot proposition and the judges seem satisfied. Both the teams presented a good case. Whether or not there is close competition in the OS and Apps market there was certainly close competition inside this courtroom. The participants are called in once again for the feedback and they are praised to a great extent. The judges said that it would be difficult to choose. In excitement the informants dropped their documents.

Preliminary Round 2:

Courtroom No. 11

Informant (TC 28)   v.  Opposing party (TC  03)

 TC 28, Speaker 1 ( 3:30 PM)

The speaker after seeking permission of the court approached the dais. The judges asked  him to proceed with the scheme of arguments. He started with the issues and answered every question by the bench very crisply and confidently. He seemed to be very composed and to some extent satisfied the judges with the help of precedents. Keeping a sharp note of time, he structured the arguments and continued answering the bench. Even after the time was up the judges kept questioning him and enquired about very minute details. Clerk of the court signalled that the speaker has extended 15 minutes of his time and judges positively acknowledged it. The speaker got stuck on a judgement cited, looked towards the researcher for help but the disinterested researcher sat there like students in a boring lecture. Seeking the last clarification from him the speaker was asked to conclude with the issues. 

TC 28, Speaker 2 (4:05 PM)

The speaker after approaching the dais started by dividing the issues into further sub-issues.

The bench sought clarification regarding the division of issues and asked her to proceed with the arguments. She was questioned on the applicability of provisions referred to in the memorial and thereafter was questioned about every argument forwarded. The speaker losing her confidence kept silent for a moment but continued on the same line of arguments. She tried to satisfy they just seemed unsatisfied. Finally the researcher mentally came to the courtroom and helped her answer the  rigorous question round. The speaker winded up without giving any extra efforts to satisfy the bench.

TC 03, Speaker 1 (4:30 PM)

The speaker directly starting with the issues referred to a judgement, engaging the bench with the compendium submitted. The speaker started so confidently that the argument was accepted by the bench with only a few questions. The speaker again and again referred to compendium and the clarifications, engaging the bench and answering the questions to their satisfaction. The bench still enquiring the speaker regarding the same points to confuse him however he maintains the stand, not falling for the trap. Their attentive researcher knows his job and is passing chits for every tricky question posed to him. Due to constraints of time he was asked to wrap the arguments by only giving the pointers to the second issue.

Not losing confidence till the last second, he summarised.

TC 03, Speaker 2 (4:50 PM)

The bench directed the speaker to first list the points in the prayer and connect them with the arguments advanced. The speaker continued and the bench started shooting their questions.

Every question was answered by him being in line with his issues. The clerk of the court rang the bell as the time was up. The speaker hurriedly explained the structure of his arguments and presented the pointers of the case. He was questioned again and again and was instructed to summarise. The bench is no more interested to entertain further arguments due to paucity of time, but he continues to finish his arguments. At last he was questioned regarding the jurisdiction of the court and the round was wrapped up on a good note.

Prelims Round 2

Courtroom No. 4

TC 02 (Informant) v. TC 19 (Opposing Party)

TC 02, Speaker 1 3:20PM 

The speaker carried his apparent state of calm to the court and was immediately dislodged from his pedestal by the bench. The arguments have moved further but it seems the counsel couldn’t. The panel seems lost in his mesmerising voice and requests the counsel to clarify what he actually wishes to assert. This leads the counsel to a journey of self realisation. The panel is raising questions regarding certain interpretations the counsel has relied on. The discussion has now veered off on a theoretical tangent.

TC 02, Speaker 2 3:42PM 

The speaker discreetly and discretely begins with her assertions, employing both wit and charm. In the beginning, there is a vibe of quiet confidence about her, but the panel has left the counsel unsure as to the strength of the contentions posed by them. Reminiscent of those last few seconds before a viva voce, the speaker attempts a hurried reading of the memo to reacquaint herself with her contentions. The panel poses the final question which leaves the counsel in deep thought. After summarizing her specific contention the counsel rests her case. 

TC 19, Speaker 1 4:03PM

The speaker starts too softly to be heard. The panel is instructing the counsel to limit the discussion to the arguments and skip the facts due to the paucity of time, the counsel is doesn’t follow instructions and continues to argue with the help of the facts but the panel is only interested in the legal aspect of the contentions. The judge seems to be satisfied with the justification given by the counsel to the questions raised by him. The counsel is skilled in oration and presentation, which keeps the spectators at the edge of their seats, wondering what’s coming next. Alas! Time is of essence, and the speaker is asked to conclude.

TC 19, Speaker 2 4:22 PM  

The counsel steps up the podium and presents her contentions with practiced ease and amazing cadence. The counsel moves further with her propositions and arguments. A round of questioning commences. The team seems to be pedantic in a lot of ways and is taking care of minor nuances of the arguments and protocols. The attention to detail might be a vital factor in the decision of the team’s fate. The counsel rests her arguments for now.

Rebuttal  4:44 PM

The informing team has stepped up for the rebuttal and it was quick as a flash and now the panel raises a question which remains unsettled and unanswered.

Sub-rebuttal 4:50 PM

The opposing party takes their final stand and summarises their arguments for the benefit of the court.

Prelims Round 2

Courtroom no.: 14

T.C. 08 (Informant)  Vs. T.C. 23 (Opposing Party)

SPEAKER 1 (Informants): (3:10 PM)

The speaker approaches the dais and glances at his notes before starting. He is visibly startled by the questions aimed at him but eventually, he gets a hold of himself and presents his speech in a confident manner. Way to go, Hwaiting! The proceedings go on smoothly, without any hiccups. The court clerk puts up the time-over sign. 

Seems like the bench was saving all the queries for the last minute. Although the speaker seems to be steady while he answers, the bench looks unimpressed. He presents the same arguments for the fifth time.

He somehow manages to tackle the questions and conclude his case.

SPEAKER 2 (Informants): (3:35 PM)

The speaker comes to further more explain the issues presented by his predecessor.He tries to mention sections to support his arguments but fails to satisfy the bench on various parts.

The courtroom proceeds to be as monotonous as our Hon’ Prime minister’s speeches.the room is so gloomy that the courtroom scribe pleads guilty of yawning. The speakers is completely entwined in his own arguments as the judges continue to dismiss them.

There arises a quarrel regarding a stay order (i wish i could put a stay on this whole proceeding). Finally the speaker concludes his issues and leaves the dais.

SPEAKER 1( opposing party): (3:50 PM)

The speaker notifies the bench that he will be dealing with issues 1 and 2 while his successor will deal with issue 3. He starts off with swooping everyone off with his courtroom ethics - asking permission from the judges on every step. Somebody please call Alok Nath, I think he needs to take some lessons from this guy. As the proceedings continue it becomes more funnier. Is this a courtroom? Or am I in wonderland? The poor guy asks a judge if he’s convinced and shall he proceed. To which the judge blatantly replies “No, I’m not at all convinced”. I would suggest “ab to job chhod hi de”. The whole room giggles just as opposing party’s scores will. Did I just hear “nobody compels anyone” as a reply from the speaker. Yes i did! I wish I could stand right now and shout that we all are compelled to listen to your arguments and that’s the sole reason behind us being in this room.

The team seems to have lost their credence from their teammate. He is interrupted by the third bell and he has to move back to his seat.

SPEAKER 2 (Opposing party): (4:12 PM)

The speaker comes with impeccable courtroom etiquettes as well as seems to be quite well versed with all his arguments to present the issue but as soon as the bench asks him to state case laws to support his argument, he goes silent as a grave (*sighs* ciao adios I’m done). The researcher seems to be cursing his teammate in his mind (utha le re baba, mujhe nahi isko utha le).

The informant side seems to grow happier and clearly can be seen smirking the whole time.

The courtroom has turned to a teaching lesson with the bench imparting the knowledge into the heads of completely clueless speakers.

He gets hold of himself and tries to conclude his arguments. Courtclerk ringing the warning bell ( the sole purpose of her melancholic life). Ahh! Alas. elixir to my ears “therefore in the light of aforesaid arguments….” after which he gets back to his position.

SPEAKER 1 (opposing party): (4:30 PM)

Speaker one comes back from the pavilion and presents his points. He is told by the judges to be precise with his arguments. The bench exchange a look and tells the speaker to “take his seat” and therefore the day concludes.

Preliminary Round 2

Courtroom No. 07

TC 17 v. TC 11

Speaker 1(Informant) 3:16 

The speaker seeks permission to move towards dias, she is quite fast, it is like a Rabbit Run for the speaker and writer at the same time, Well! The speaker had a strong start. She started explaining the time divisions that will be dealt by them. She tries to save time by not stating the facts. The way she speaks is smart and attention grabbing. She is well versed with the moot proposition and is speaking well. She isn’t fumbling and the judges seem to be impressed. Can you Imagine? It’s been 10 minutes not a single interjections from judges. OK! She is immediately cross questioned; I seem to be carrying the commentators curse (sorry guys :p). As I expected she answers the question smartly. I don’t know about the judges but I am certainly satisfied lol. Meanwhile, her teammates exchange a look of appreciation for their teammate.

Her way of presenting arguments seems brilliant and I wish I could focus completely on her speech but unfortunately I need to focus on writing as well. We have our own professional and not so professional photographers here to record our efforts. The atmosphere isn’t very tense as the speaker is doing well. The time ends, but she pleads for more. The judges are asking questions but she manages to keep her calm and seems to satisfy judges. Her time is finally up. I am sure she must have earned some valuable points for her team. 

Speaker 2(Informant) 3:35

She is even faster than the first speaker. I think my ears are sweating. She is fluent, prompt in answering, and can make the opponents sweat. They seem well prepared and so do our judges asking challenging questions. Her court manners are laudable, she seems to be honoured arguing before the court. one can not easily turn out their ears even if they are a layman. She is speaking with Vande Bharat express speed And is able to insert a lot of arguments in the limited time. She was asked questions  and deals with them well to nobody’s surprise. 

Who says India is a slow developing nation?

Silence! Moot court turning to mute room! Informants were chided for murmuring inside court.

Speaker 1 (opposing party) 3:55 PM

The silence was broken by speaker 1 of opposing party determining the time slots that have distributed for speaker 1 and speaker 2 respectively. Again speaker is fired with a question, which she answers and the judges look pleased. The speaker is persuasive. I must say they are also giving a tough fight. One can enjoy this cut-throat competition; it's worth watching and spending time here. Ok! Wait the speaker asked the judges to clarify their question.

Her voice is soft but assertive in nature and she seems brilliant with her work. Tada! Connection interrupted! I have been cut off from the world and the only thing important is the competition in front of me.

The judges start asking questions after questions but the speaker is like the hero in Hindi movies who is able to fight hundreds of goons and beat them all. 

Not to exaggerate, but Where am I? I am intimidated? She seems so brilliant. It seems she needs water. Her co - counsel waiting for her turn! 

Oh! There she seeks extension after so long. Judges seems to be satisfied with her arguments. I noticed Informant jotting down some points, and I am looking forward to the great rebuttals.

Court clerk has alerted the time’s up several times now but he might just as well not be there for all the attention he’s getting. 

Speaker 2  (Opposing Party) 4:14

The speaker affirms that she will be dealing with the second and third arguments. Speaker is confident to no one’s surprise. Soon she is interrupted by the crisp  question of honourable judges, a series of arguments arises between the bench and the counsel. They are being tried and tested, counsel is brilliant but can be crumbled with the wits of our judges. 

Another Photographer, Acknowledged me! Gobsmacked! The atmosphere inside the courtroom is serious as judges are cross - questioning thoroughly. The speaker tries hard to convince the judges with her contentions but faces tough questioning from the judges. Here comes researcher to the help!

Opposing party is having a tough time answering questions, but I believe they are doing a great job! 

Judges are not ready to give up they are firing the speaker with a volley of questions. But the best part is speaker isn’t ready to surrender. The emotions are running high and the speaker drops the memorial due to nerve. She is gradually regaining her momentum. I appreciate her effort. One can easily see that she has out in a lot of effort preparing for this competition. She seeks further extension; the tension goes up a notch as the Judges discuss whether or not to grant the request. Extra time is allowed to the relief of the team.

She summarises her arguments quickly and ends her journey with the prayer.

Rebuttals 4:35

I am expecting strong rebuttals, they live up to expectations, list quite a number of rebuttals, speaker again is fascinating to listen. The opposing party does not seem to  pay attention to the rebuttals.

Sur Rebuttals 4:39

Ok we do have sur-rebuttals, speaker was present with her wits through out the arguments . Informants seems to be overenthusiastic about their work! It was a nice time watching such a high level mooting skills.


One needs a heavy dosage of sleep after such mind tumbling interplay of words. I am here reporting after scenes of moot court. Don’t yell! Not gonna disclose the scores. We have the participants here for the feedback.

 I am staying up!

It was an excellent research work! As cited by our judges . I know we have a very positive response from our judges.

Participants deeply involved in their feedback!

Me craving for the coffee

Ok Bye!


Courtroom 14

TC 17 (Informant) v TC 18 (Respondent)

Hustle Rustle the PR reaches late!

TC 17

Speaker 1  6.40pm

The speaker approaches the dais , explains the time distribution between the speakers and proceeds with the facts and issues of the proposition. She is questioned on the basic understanding of facts , which she handles with the comfort. The speaker is soft, calm but impressive in manners of presenting arguments convincingly. 

The speaker explains the arguments persuasively and is calm but slow with her contentions. Although it may seem that she is delivering a lecture, on a layman's perspective , I am fascinated. Judges seems to fire back fiercely to the speaker but she manages to maintain her calm. There are continuous questions and cross questions by the honourable judges, the brighter side to look at is that they remain firm and confident with their arguments. One can easily guess the amount of hard work she has put in . However the judges do not seem to be pleased and chided the speaker that she is misleading the Bench with her assumptions. 

I notice the opponents jotting down point seriously in order to rebut. I am expecting a great rebuttal. The speaker seems to stumble a bit , I think she needs water. She seeks a time extension, to no surprise her request was granted.

Oh! She is back with her enthusiasm  even I can notice court clerks deeply mesmerised by her last sum up.

Speaker 2   7.06pm

The speaker two will deal with the last two issues. Wait! She is interrupted midway by judges claiming the missing parts on memorial . She is fast and furious, I wonder if she will give a chance to judges for interjections. Oh! I was wrong, she was questioned on the understanding of facts, which she managed to dodge with the help of her co-speaker. The judges ask for clarifications several times, it seems that Speaker 2 is gobsmacked with the question asked of them. The tone of answering is calm, continuous  without a single break and interruptions. Judges  are determined and are focussed on firing tongue-twisting questions to her . Appreciation! Oh God!I am waiting for rebuttals . She seeks permission to move towards the prayer. No! It's not the end she is midway interjected in the prayers and seems to fumble , but carries her rabbit speed of speaking.

TC 18

Speaker 1 7:27pm

As he starts he was asked to explain the locus standi, Statement of Jurisdiction, which he manages to explain well. He determines the part he will be dealing with and his partner. Speaker seems well-prepared, clear  with the basics. He seeks permission to move towards the next argument, It seems her partner is more tense than  the person speaking. He is confident with her contentions, but, yes! Every great thing has flaws which are  never missed by a good judge. Thus, he was again interrupted, this time he caught my attention . Oh! Did I miss anything?

Ok! He is coiled in interplay of words. I and court clerk exchange some casual glances . No the sailing is not yet over, he is once more questioned , dodges them and proceeds with the summary. Sail is not easy, he was midway interrupted, however manages to pass off. He is being tested at every level and cross questioned on every point. It's a long time since he is answering questions, however it is hard to discern the judges’ apprehension.

Speaker 2 7:48pm

The speaker  seeks permission to approach the dais , which was humbly granted by the honourable judges. He is loud, clear and can be lauded for the demeanour of speaking. I notice his partners happily exchanging glances in appreciation for his speaker. He seems to answer the questions of judges smartly which shows their command on the subject.. His expression seems to bind the judges . He is questioned on the basis of his understanding of facts and is also asked to explain some technical jargons mentioned in the proposition. Oh! We have clarifications. The Speaker is too fast with his statements. He is owed some brownie points . The Bench seems to be pleased with the explanations backed by the strong and relatable illustrations. His hand movements catches the attention. Meanwhile I notice the Informants noting the points seriously.

Judges seem to trouble the speaker with their witty questions, however he answers by raising some serious questions. The Speaker seeks time extension of two minutes which was granted obligingly. Oh! Voice pitched, speed as fast as Bullet Train and he is not ready to stop at any stations.  Speaker proceeds with the prayer and was again questioned on technical nomenclature, but unfortunately failed to answer the question.

Rebuttal TC 17  8:11pm

The Speaker comes with the confidence , he was asked by the judges to wrap in brief points. I would point out the body language which is being exhibited  can be offensive. They were questioned at their points. The points are raised which I guess would be answered by opposite party. 

Rebuttal TC 18 8:16pm

The Opposite Party comes with the high spirit to answer the rebuttals raised. The points are briefed systematically and seems very sophisticated  that may please the judges. He was questioned , although he manages to escape. He is fluent and is clear with the explanation inviting no further interjections.


Courtroom no.: 05

T.C. 14 (Informant) v. T.C. 06 (Opposing Party)

The gongs are beaten and the bells are rung as HNMCC moves forward to the fiery stages with the commencement of the Quarter Finals. The teams are armoured with their arguments and with case laws in their arsenal.  The nail-biting atmosphere has everyone on the edge of their seats. May victory serve the worthy and may the light of knowledge grace us all. 

The awaited judges grace us with their presence and the court falls in order.


Speaker 1 (Informant): 06:52 P.M.

The speaker seeks the permission of the bench to approach the dais and is granted the same. Specifying the time distribution, the agent starts with the issues. The bench screens every single issue in detail, placing attention on every aspect of the contention. The agent guides the court through all the sections of the Competition Act with much expertise. Her speech is seemingly flawless. The speaker is articulate in her presentation and thorough with the proposition. The judges don’t let her go smoothly and begin the onslaught of questions, but the agent provides full justice to the queries with her convincing arguments, trying her best to command the course of the case. 

The speaker is handling the questions with much ease and there’s a legitimate war of words between the bench and the agent. The tussle between the bench and the speaker heats up as the case proceeds. 

Speaker 2 (Informants): 07:16 P.M.

The speaker now carries the mantle of the case. She is straightforward with her arguments, yet the bench is confusing her with their questions, who is handling it professionally. Both the speakers should be appreciated for their diligence and the efficiency with which they steer the discussions back to their arguments and never seem to part ways with their proposition. 

The judges aren’t letting them off easily though. They are placing hurdles, one after the other, and the speaker expertly dodges them like an exciting game of temple run.

After another round of intense questioning, the speaker rests her case.

Speaker 1 (Opposing Party): 07:31 P.M.

The speaker approaches the dais with the permission of the bench and starts advancing the fact. He is caught by surprise by a sudden query from the bench about one of their important contentions. He backs his arguments up with cases and precedents which he seems to have memorized on his fingertips. 

The judges are relentless and are leaving no stones unturned. They are critical towards every single argument advanced in front of the court.

The begs for extension of time since the barrage of queries took up most of the time. After some to and fro, the speaker wraps up the case. 

Speaker 2 (Opposing Party): 07:53 P.M.

The speaker continues the arguments stated by his fellow speaker.  The speaker appears to be technically sound and is well versed with the case and after catering to the queries of the bench, the agent now moves to detail the core arguments given by his fellow speaker. The bench keeps on poking and prodding the speaker’s case, to find any fallacy that they can. There are several dimensions that the agent adds to the case thus making it more interesting, but on the other hand, it also invites several mind-boggling queries from the bench. 

The speaker moves on to the prayer and thus rests his case. 


The Informants come up with some really demolishing arguments against the opposition party, which feel more like well-timed bombs and less like rebuttals. Every single rebuttal advanced by the informants were crisp and top-notch. 

In response to the rebuttals, the opposition parties gave apt replies which, looking at judges’ faces, seem to be convincing enough.

And so, the day is done, with a collective sigh of relief from everyone involved!

Quarter Finals

Courtroom No. 10

TC 05 (Informant) v. TC 03 (Opposing Party)

TC 05, Speaker 1 : 6:44 PM

The speaker is determined to reach the finals and seems to have installed a boom-box in his  larynx. The speaker is trying hard to hold the interest of the bench but the discussion reaches a stalemate when he looks at his researcher for help but receives none. The speaker knows the facts, the law and precedents, but he cannot satisfy the bench. There is some elusive and vital point he is missing. The speaker seems to agree with what the judges are averring but at the same time he cannot concede his stand.

The judges are enjoying the session, enjoying the opportunity to grill the participants till they fumble. Step aside Guantanamo Bay, HNLU is what you should be afraid of. The speaker is trying a new technique, applying real life illustrations to justify his stance but the bench has lost their patience. The fate of the team now rests in the hands of the co-counsel.

TC 05, Speaker 2 : 7:05 PM

Speaker 2 now faces an uphill challenge, the bench isn’t particularly pleased with the state of affairs as they stand. They have many unanswered queries and are determined to acquire the answers. The speaker has no dearth of doctrines to state to support his arguments. He is answering questions with certainty and confidence but looks like it is taking a toll on him to maintain this facade. 

Time management appears to be an issue for him as the allotted time runs out even before he has completed his arguments. The speaker doesn’t seem to be accommodating towards the suggestions of the bench. He is referring to the compendium time and again but the judges are more focused on the facts. He has no choice but to plead ignorance. The speaker is trying his level best to convince the bench but they are adamant. Speaker resorts to reading the memo and bare act as a last ditch attempt to establish his stance.

TC 03 , Speaker 1 : 7:25 PM

The speaker is well versed with court ethics and speaks in a dulcet tone. He is eloquent and is giving great attention to establishing the facts that are relevant to their case. He seems to have complete command over both the memo and the compendium. The bench complains that the cases referred to are too old, but the speaker confidently sidesteps all possible landmines, we might have a winner on our hands! 

The bench is amiable and seems quite content with his submissions. Strangely enough, there is no rapid fire questioning this time. The judges are actually accepting his submissions and seem to be following the narrative of laws, facts and arguments being established. He has the luxury of adding peripheral points to his stance. Two extra minutes have been allocated to the speaker and he doesn’t even pause to breathe. The speaker has actually exhausted the queries of the bench, I never thought I’d live to see the day!

TC 03, Speaker 2 : 7:43 PM

The speaker starts with resolving the queries of the bench although there aren’t many left. He is supplementing  his arguments with vital examples and analogies. Although, he appears to be in urgent need of some Benadryl and a few good case laws because he starts coughing whenever he fails to answer. The speaker just committed a blunder and contradicted his co-counsel's stance. He isn’t well versed with the law but knows to beat the facts into submission. The bench previously agreed with all that they have been trying to establish but now have started grilling him on his stance. 

The valiant soldier is stuck but he perseveres. He has become restless and his body language indicates an adrenaline rush, the practiced bravado is no longer working. This speaker is gesticulating wildly. The bulletproof stance of the team is rapidly falling apart. Is there a chicken dinner in the future of this duo? We can no longer be sure! He asked for a time extension from the bench which now only has one stock response, denial.

Rebuttal : 8:00 PM

Speaker 1 from TC 05 seems to have confused the rebuttal round with the speeches and the bench is struggling to find a good summarization from all of the content.

Sur Rebuttal: 8:10 PM

Speaker 2 is quite analytical regarding the points stated by the other team and has raised vital questions in his final chance to speak.



(18:48 PM - 20:28 PM)

TC 26 v. TC 11

We are done with preliminary rounds and now start with the quarter finals of this competition. The arguments are going to begin and the ambiance in the courtroom is very intense and the tension is palpable on the faces of the participants. 


(18:50 PM)

The speaker begins her speech by citing certain cases regarding competition law. He is referring to the bare act every now and then. The judges are trying to fluster the speaker by questioning each and every word uttered by the speaker. There is an intense back and forth questioning going on in the courtroom. The bench is going in the depth of the legalities and isn’t letting the speaker take even a calm breath. The speaker is gathering her facts and thoughts and continuing with her arguments. It seems as if she is challenging herself as she speaks word after word. The judges ask the speaker what importance certain terms hold in this specific case. Judges assume a hypothesis in this case and inquire about the respective consequences after this assumption. The questioning and answering session is continuing in full flow. The court clerk gesticulates that the speaker has run out of time, but the court grants her an extra minute. The bench suddenly asks the speaker an unexpected question. The speaker takes a few seconds to understand the question and to structure her answer. The bench asks her to conclude and asks her if she has any documents to submit. She refuses and leaves the dais.


(19:05 PM)

The speaker commences by giving a brief outline of his speech and the issues which will be touched and dealt with by him in his speech. The judges do not waste a single moment in the proceedings and quickly start asking whether certain terms have been defined anywhere and if yes, where? The bench admonishes the speaker on his wrong usage of words and cautions him against it. The judges are in no mood to give any relief to the speaker. The court asks the speaker whether the appeal is maintainable from a legal perspective. The bench comes ahead with a new set of questions. The speaker quickly comes up with concise answers and manages to convince the judges. Its been three times now that the court clerk has signaled that the time allotted to the speaker has exhausted but the speaker continues speaking and getting questioned by the bench. The speaker looks completely baffled and begins to stammer and does not have any idea about the issue raised by the bench. The intricacies of the case are being closely monitored by the bench and they are being absolutely particular about some facts stated by the counsel. The speaker is completely immersed in the case and is paying close attention to the facts stated by him and is trying to leave no further scope for the judges to ask questions. The judges look stern and serious and are focused on the content of the speaker’s speech. The speaker finally settles his speech and leaves the dais.



The court is encapsulated by a sense of tranquility as the speaker begins with her speech. Her style is not decorated with big words and hard legal terms and phrases but is filled with clear,  poignant thoughts. The speaker seems to be a very practiced mooter as she is not getting muddled by the questions of the judges and handling them pretty well. The bench seems to be content with the articulate and lucid answers being given by the speaker. The speaker seems to be not holding anything back and giving her best attempt to convince the judges. The speaker provides the judges with a copy of a case for their perusal and continues to cite some lines from the said case. An unceasing round of questioning and answering has begun, the speaker is trying her level best to satisfy the judges by applying relevant knowledge and acumen. The judges are listening to the speaker intently and looking for an opportunity to question the speaker. The bench explicitly tries to clarify and inquire about the argument put forward by the speaker. The speaker is doing a good job by reducing the pace of the proceedings by taking her time and then speaking with a clear mind and by citing the required cases. The same is being observed by the other team with a sense of envy. The judges seem more than interested to listen to every legal aspect of the case. The ignorance given to the repetitive time warnings given by the court clerk seems to show how intrigued the bench is. The speaker now ends her case and thanks the bench for listening to her arguments.

TC 11, SPEAKER 2 :

(20:03 PM)
The speaker starts off with a properly sketched outline of her speech and begins to put forward her arguments one after the other. The judges are now reading aloud a specific paragraph from a document provided by them and ask for the interpretation for the same from the speaker. The bench is highly upset with the speaker’s interpretation but asks the speaker to move ahead with further arguments. The team’s research seems excellent as he is continuously providing the bench with proper and relevant data related to this case. The judges feel that the sections cited by the speaker would not be applicable in this case which intensifies the tension in the room. The speaker makes a failed attempt to assuage the judges. The bench has absolutely fired up at the facts stated by the speaker and questions her about the basic concepts of copyright. There is a tangible load palpable in the courtroom. The court seems to be very unhappy with some facts and rules them out. The judges have now become a bit friendly and ask the speaker to take some time and drink water. They ask the speaker if she has anything more to add to her arguments as the court clerk shows the sign that the time allotted is over. She replies in negative and concludes her speech.

Day 3 commences with semi-finals.


Court Room No. 11

T.C. 26 (Informant) v. T.C. 06 (Opposite party)

10:28 am

All the participants have arrived. Both the teams are eagerly waiting for the rounds to begin so that they can present their arguments. The entire setup of the room has changed from what it was in the prelims - it is now really looking like a courtroom. The court clerk is busy arranging documents and the participants are explained the maximum time for which they can speak. The atmosphere is intense- nobody would like to exit the competition at this stage. 


One of the judges has entered the courtroom and is going through the documents carefully. The participants look ready to fight till the last. The court clerk is briefing the judges on the time distribution. It can be predicted that the competition would be tough. Both the teams are discussing among themselves. The other two judges have now arrived. The court clerk asks the informants to take the dais.

Speaker 1 (Informant) 10:53am

The first speaker begins by explaining the time and issue distribution between her and her co-speaker; she would discuss issues 1 and 2. She proceeds on to the facts. She seems slightly nervous as she fumbles a little. The judges keenly listen to her and it’s apparent that they are formulating questions in their mind. Tension is rising but she presents the facts clearly and concisely. She is still proceeding with the facts with her 15 minutes that she specifically told running out. She seems to forgetful of her points but recovers quickly. No questions yet. She proceeds with her issues. The opposite party is listening to her attentively. She talks about the relevant market and certain provisions of the Competition Commission. She is thorough with cases and has already cited 3-4 cases until now. The judges do not interrupt the speaker which helps her keep the flow (but I suspect she is in for intense questioning at the end of her speech). One of the judges asks her a question at this point which she seems to answer satisfactorily. 

The co-speakers requests to switch off the fan. Maybe he is feeling hot from the intense  atmosphere. The speaker is really getting into the flow when she is interrupted by another question. She seems really prepared with her answers and she does not falter. Time is running out and only 5 minutes are left. Using proper sections she efficiently defends her arguments. One of the judges has a confused expression by her statements and she is questioned. She requests an extension of 2 minutes to summarise her arguments which is granted. At this point, she is asked a conceptual question which she answers to the judges' satisfaction. The time is shown again and a final question is asked by the same judge. The judge is more into asking conceptual questions rather than factual ones. Her arguments are presented well and she calls upon her co-speaker to present her arguments.

Speaker 2 (Informant ): 11:15 am

The second speaker approaches the dais and confidently presents his arguments. He is allowed to speak without being interrupted in between. He seems confident in his speech. When questioned, he seems a little tensed as he scratches his head. He is not able to efficiently answer the question as is seen from the expression of the judge but the judge allows him to go ahead. He regains his confidence and continues with his arguments. The judges have a stern look on their face and one of the judges continuously ask questions to the speaker to test his credibility. His co-speaker passes on a chit to put him out of his misery. However, the chits may not be of much help after all. The other judges remain silent and listen to the speaker. The judge never seems to be satisfied with his answer and wants something more appropriate. It seems that his questions are quite difficult to answer and he is never able to satisfy him. The co-speaker is equally active here and passes yet another chit. He will not be allowed to move forward without answering the question. Time is running out fast. Only 5 minutes left. It seems that he would not be able to finish his arguments. Desperate, he requests the judges to let him go on to the next argument. Time is up but he is allowed to wrap up. 

Speaker 1 (Opposite party): 11: 34 am

The first speaker from the opposite party presents a brief roadmap of her case. She would be dealing with the first and second issues. She would take 18 minutes to present her arguments - such an exact time. She is passed on chits by her co-speaker as soon as she begins. The judges have already got in the flow of asking questions. She seems confident and prepared with her arguments and justifies the same with the help of illustrations. It seems that she is well acquainted with her case and nobody would be able to counter her position. The judges refer to the memorandum to test her more. The speaker seems so confident that the judge has to check with the bare act to check her accuracy. She efficiently controls the direction of the proceedings by telling that she would be elaborately dealing with questions later and saving time by not wasting it on a single question. But the questions keep pouring in. Through her arguments, she also criticizes the points put forward by the opposite party. With 5 minutes to go, tension is rising on the informant side but they are busy collecting points for the rebuttals. The speaker aptly requests the judges to let her move on to the next issue due to lack of time. The judges interrupt her and demand her to explain her stance on the current issue first. Her team members efficiently help her from the sidelines. One of the judges smile- is it real or sarcastic? The court clerks feel ignored as they have shown the ‘time over’ sign three times now. She finally ends her arguments and calls upon her co-speaker.

Speaker 2 (Opposite party): 12:06am

The second speaker approaches the dais and again gives a brief review. He would be discussing the 3rd and 4th issues. He speaks fast but with clarity. There are no pauses, and he continues unhindered. The judges listen to him carefully to find faults in his contentions. He seems to be thorough with all his material. The speaker is allowed to move forward without any questions. He is really fast- we can’t keep up! It feels more like an episode of Flash! When asked a question, he answers loud and clear. The researcher also seems efficient, continuously passing chits and assisting the speakers. Brilliant teamwork. There is no fumbling!! The judges seem perplexed at the efficiency of his speech. He easily moves on to the next issue without any questions. But not for long- the judges realize their position and surprise him with a question. Here he falters. The researcher is always at his rescue. He handles this efficiently the questions and the judge seems really satisfied with his answer. The judges seem to have finally caught up to his speed and fire questions at him one after the other. 5 minutes are left but there is no escape. He is confident but maybe not always correct. The judges are not letting him go easily. They never seem satisfied. The speaker is unable to efficiently answer the questions and finally moves onto the prayer. 

Rebuttal: 12:24pm

The first speaker asks permission to rebut the arguments of the opposite party. She has made all her points and efficiently presents them in front of the judges. However, she is not allowed to present the rebuttals without interruptions. She doesn’t lose heart, and parades on. She even uses the compendium to her benefit to rebut the opposite party. Time is long over for the rebuttal but she continues. The judges seem interested in her arguments. The opposite party keenly listens to the speaker. 


The speaker from the opposite party rises confidently to defend their cases. The speaker presents arguments confidently and in brief. The judges are attentive and don’t interrupt much. She quickly ends her arguments and returns to her place.

The proceedings end and the participants sigh in relief. 

Court Room: 14

T.C. 18 (Informant) v. T.C. 03 (Opposing Party)

Judges are yet to arrive. The courtroom is silent and brimming with anxiety. All the participants seem tensed but gearing up for the fight. The court clerks are busy explaining the rules to the participants.

Teams are exchanging last-minute tips among themselves and court clerks are trying best to make teams comfortable. The atmosphere will become more intense soon enough as the judges arrive but it is to the participants to keep their calm.

Speaker 1: 10:55 AM
The Counsel approaches the dais with the permission of the bench. To his surprise, he is asked what is to be done if no permission is granted but he doesn’t lose his cool and replies calmly. He is confident in the way he approaches the dais and starts to present his arguments with utmost ease. He seems thorough with the moot proposition and is well versed in the facts and the regulations. He is directly bombarded with questions on jurisdiction. He seems tensed at first but regains his composure. He is able to answer efficiently, as the judges nod their heads.

He commenced his speech by explaining the structure of his argument and the composition of his team. Counsel is being questioned on some fundamental definitions to which he gives appropriate answers. Attempting to convince the bench on issue 1, he refers to the compendium. He is challenged but still manages to be in control of the situation. Speaker tackles every query by the bench explaining the situation of the Informant party.   He is using certain articles to support his argument and manages to keep the bench engaged in his speech. The speaker gives references of landmark cases and the judges seem impressed. But the judges do not let him continue unhindered. They start with one question after the other confusing the speaker. The speaker requests the bench for another minute, which is granted. He concludes his arguments shortly after.

Speaker 2: 11:20 AM

The co-counsel asks permission to approach the podium and is immediately interrupted by the bench. The bench inquires if the permission given to speaker 1 was not implied for the co-counsel as well. He requests the bench to refer certain documents in his compendium to clarify their query. The researcher is quick to help her teammates and supplies them with valuable input. The bench asked the counsel to explain the doctrines he has been using which he manages to do flawlessly. The judge spots an error with a missing footnote in the compendium. The team manages to rectify this with a book source. 
Speaker is constantly being questioned by the bench, he is trying to satisfy them by referring to facts. Her Ladyship looks confused with the speech but counsel manages to impress her. Counsel managed to maintain his pace regardless of the bench placing hurdles after hurdles. He requests for the time extension of 5mins. Lapsing the time extension he is asked by bench to summarize his argument in 1 minute. However, the bench continues with their questions, and the 1 minute time limit is soon forgotten.

Speaker 1 (Opposing Party): 11:50 AM
The speaker representing the opposing party requests for the grant to approach the dais. He starts, sounding firm about his argument.  He is impeccable in his speech. He tries to persuade the bench on points of his contentions. He is asked to fight his arguments on legal points. After bringing certain laws in the notice of the court he continues with his contention. He is interrogated on his claims, and he fumbles a little but carries on.
Counsel is helped by the researcher but he is still not able to satisfy the bench on this dispute. He argues about the bona fide intention of the app and tries to bring the merits of the case in notice of the bench. The bench again demands the counsel to back it up by the source of law.
After long arguments exchanged between the bench and the counsel, he finally gains some appreciative nods. Dais is handed over to the co-counsel.

Speaker 2 (Opposing Party): 12:14 PM

Co-counsel approaches the dais. He starts with his contention and is immediately interrogated by the bench on the ownership of data. Explaining the same he is bombarded with a series of queries from the bench. He tries to sound impressive and manages to answer it after a few attempts. 

Bench asks the counsel not to bring issues that are not being contented by the Informant party. Counsel explains the merits of the contention being put before the court, and he is allowed to proceed. Bench demands the counsel to prove certain facts and circumstances, leading to heavy argumentation. Counsel is rapidly questioned about the facts. Judges look quite well versed with the subject law.

It is notable to see that even after being dragged on the line by the bench, counsel still manages to keep his composure. The bench is least concerned about the lapse of time and demands more clarification from the counsel. He refers to relevant judgments to support his assertions. 
Counsel is being questioned on negotiations and bench reminds the counsel of the time constraints. 

Court asks the teams to move towards the rebuttals and mentions them to be concise about what they deliver.
Speaker 1 makes the move towards the dais.

Rebuttals 12:45PM
Bench makes time limit exceptionally clear to the teams. Team 1 tries to turn arguments of Informant down and Team 2 emphasis on the status of monopoly not being created by the opposing party.
Apart from a request by the teams for the extension of time they were asked to wind up. 

After the commendable performance of both the teams judges look impressed and a bit stressed about the marking, awaiting results.
Teams are quite stressed but they are happy about how they managed to finally deliver their best.

Here is the live blog for the Finals


TC 06 (Informant) v. TC 03 (Opposing Party)

The wait is finally over, readers. The judges and teams are both going through their documents, slowly flipping through the pages. As soon as the commencement of final rounds is announced, the teams stop fussing and redirect all their attention towards the bench.

TC 06, Speaker 1 : 2:25 PM

The speaker approaches the dais confidently and provides a brief sketch of her speech. She has given a brief introduction to her first argument and refers to a case to bring the bench’s attention to the compendium submitted by them. She begins with how Burgin & Burkes Inc. have achieved a dominant position in the market and have also abused such dominant position. She poses a rhetorical question to the bench, focusing on the point that B&B have restricted the market for other smaller companies by pre-installing their apps in the handheld devices. The judge questions whether the apps are free with the licence and hence how is B&B making the OEMs buy the apps. Counsel responds that the option to preinstall the apps for free is actually a facade and the whole situation does result in foreclosure to market for other app developers. She further tries to accuse B&B of leveraging but is stopped by a judge to again explain the first part of the argument. The speaker goes into a loop while reasoning with bench. The bench is interrupting time and again, and they ask the speaker to differentiate between dominance and monopoly. The speaker requests to move ahead to the second part of her argument, i.e., leveraging. The judge again stops her mid-sentence. The vibe grows more intense by the minute. 

The speaker seems to have made her point clear to the best of her abilities, however some judges don’t seem satisfied with her words. The speaker’s argument is about how B&B’ has abused their dominant position. The judge again states that she is not establishing any facts under section 3(2) of The Competition Act. The speaker tries to convince the judge that she is speaking about section 3(4). A judge asks exactly what the speaker is trying to establish in front of the bench. There seems to be some confusion here. In order to simplify her arguments, speaker is now trying to create a parallel between B&B Inc. and Google. She tries to show how they the two companies have the same positions in the market. She is now talking about the original and forked version of the Phoenix OS. The judge states that the speaker needs to understand that B&B kept the proprietary rights. The speaker fails to see the connection between proprietary rights and her argument, which the judge then has to explain to her in detail.

The judge fires another question at the speaker but the speaker yet again fails to see the connection. The judge explains to her how her argument is not based on the facts provided. Time runs out and one minute has been granted to the counsel to sum up her arguments. She ends her speech with a rhetorical question to the bench in the hopes of finally persuading the bench. 

TC 06, SPEAKER 02:  2:51 PM

The second speaker starts by briefing the bench about the contentions he will be dealing with. The issues of jurisdiction will be taken up as well as how the denial of access to a database is an abuse of dominance in the market of general search services. The speaker directs the attention of the bench to the preamble of the Competition Act. He is asked the difference between ‘jurisdiction’ and ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ and is accused of forum shopping. He now tries to explain how the bench has a normal and not exclusive jurisdiction in the matter. After a slight to and fro, he is able to carry on. The judges are minutely scrutinising the speaker’s every word. He is again interrupted. The speaker stutters but tries to answer the question raised in front of him by stating why he has set aside the whole concept of patenting. He further asserts that the database of B&B lacks originality and is therefore, not exclusive. The speaker is stopped by the bench and is informed that the database doesn’t matter, what matters is the algorithm on which it runs, which he solemnly agrees to. The judge asks the speaker to restrict his argument to software. The judge impassionately asserts that the speaker is mistaken and tells him that proprietary rights are different from copyright. 

The speaker is once again focusing on the database of B&B but the judge stops him again and asks him to establish how denying access to a database is wrong. Now the speaker seems to be going on a different tangent by explaining that the dominant company is widening its own scope in the web searching field and closing doors for other companies in the same. The speaker is trying to explain how the database of B&B is making it hard for other companies to enter the market with the same resources. The speaker is asked to stop reading from the memorandum and actually look at the bench while speaking. The speaker apologises for reading from the memorandum and further refers to the European omission case on Google. He draws a parallel between the present case and the cited case and submits that this is denial of market access to prospective producers. The counsel submits that market share of competitors is restricted to 8% of the market and therefore there can be no healthy competition. Counsel further draws the attention to Shamsher Kataria vs. Honda Siel Cars case and draws a parallel avers that the exclusionary clause in the cited case is similar to the present case. 

The judge has again stopped him and he is made to agree that he has been making an analogy all this while. He is told that they are dealing with service providers. He is asked if the database with B&B is a product or a service. He states that it is a product. The counsel wraps up by saying there has been an abuse of dominance and submits that refusal to take action on the part of the Commission will result in catastrophe in the market. The speaker ends his speech with the prayer.

TC 03, Speaker 1, 03:10 PM

The speaker approaches the dais and gives a brief of how the contentions will be dealt with. From the very beginning, he is aggressive with his arguments. He states that in order to determine whether a dominant company has abused its position or not, two important aspects must be analyzed, one, whether or not the company is dominant and two, whether or not their practices are abusive, and therefore, they are not dominant in the market. The counsel takes pride in being quick with his tongue. He asks the bench to ‘come to’ page 5 of the compendium. One of the judges points out that the counsel can only ‘draw their attention to’ a certain part of the document, throwing him off his speed, and highlighting the fault in his court mannerisms. 

He explains that they have not created any monopoly by asking the manufacturers of the handheld devices to only use their apps; he draws attention to the fact that the OEMs have the option to do so or not, there is a difference between choice and condition, saying the manufacturers had a choice and no condition was enforced upon them with respect to the apps. He quite aptly shows how the apps under Jarvis OS are also their competing apps in the market, expressing how the market play is healthy.

The speaker is asked another question on discrimination, which he answers by stating how they only ask for payment for the forked variants of their OS and such created apps, and they sell the OS to only those who directly ask for it. He draws the bench’s attention to clarification 13 and shows how Jarvis OS and Phoenix OS are having a healthy competition amongst themselves in Westeros. The speaker is asked about the popularity of Accio! that has restricted the entry of other companies in the market and whether ‘popularity’ equates to ‘dominance’. The speaker states that they have put Accio! in the group of the pre-installed apps provided with their OS and is still free. The speaker attempts to differentiate between popularity and dominance. He concedes that popularity does subtly contribute to dominance but ‘at the end of the day’ doesn’t actually make a company the most dominant company in the market.

The speaker seeks permission to move on to his other arguments. The speaker is citing a case to show how lack of other competing companies in the market doesn’t really mean that the dominant company is abusing its powers. The judge interrupts the speaker to make sure that the speaker knows that the issue at hand is not use of force but abuse of power. The judge makes a very smart observation that even if they are not legally compulsive but in practice, it is indeed compulsion. The speaker is left speechless for a moment but continues nonetheless. He swiftly wraps up his contentions in the given time.

TC 03, SPEAKER 2, 03:29 PM

The second speaker states that they are clearly justified in protecting their database as it is based on the algorithm formed by their team with hard work. Counsel submits that the entire argument of the informant would fail since they are indeed entitled to get copyright over the database. The speaker is interrupted by a question by one of the judges. He states that they are seeking patent protection of their algorithm. The judge questions the innovation in the said algorithm. The bench refuses to apply its jurisdiction on the matters of IP and patents. The speaker agrees. But the judge again makes it clear that the bench would only apply its jurisdiction if there is any unfair practice to be dealt with. The speaker is restricted to territorial limitations and stops citing examples from the global stage. He states that they can even consider the database but before he speaks another word, he is stopped by a judge to state that the database is global in nature. The researcher is active in assisting the speaker. 

He goes into  a loop like the first speaker and tries to emphasize the fact that B&B is not dominant in the market at all and has a healthy competition with Jarvis OS. The speaker states examples and tries to explain to the bench how the market works. He points out how the informant party had better resources than them and the informant’s failure is not the fault of the opposing party. He tries to explain how he is not in the position to share the database with them and how both the companies stand on the same level in the market. The judges are going through the documents submitted while keenly observing the speaker.

The speaker is trying to explain the jurisdiction of the bench and again going back into the loop of how they do not have the dominant position. The speaker requests to move to the prayer but is stopped with a question. The judge holds that the abuse of dominance cannot be permitted but there might be exceptions. He is asked to state the exceptions. The speaker is again and again interrupted by the judge as he tries to answer the questions fired at him. The judge asks him to pay attention to certain documents which the speaker does and tries to explain but is again interrupted by the judge. The speaker finally proceeds to the prayer, but the bench questions him on the order of the points in his prayer. 

Rebuttals, 03:53 PM

The speaker on behalf of the informants clearly states that the algorithm is not copyrightable under certain sections. She again attacks the opposing party’s argument that the court has no jurisdiction, stating that even if the issue of copyright exists the bench has jurisdiction as IP act provides. On the point of competition, she stresses on the fact that if a multinational company like theirs couldn’t compete with B&B, then small companies would definitely be at a disadvantage.

Sur- Rebuttals, 03:57 PM

The speaker throws light on how the informants have failed to establish most of their assumptions. He also outlines how they, as the opposing party have clearly managed to show that they do not have any dominant position in the market through the arguments advanced.


Valedictory Ceremony

After a 3-day long fierce competition, the time to draw the curtains has come as the valedictory function now begins. The stage is beautifully decorated; the coveted trophies look elegant and ready to recognize the hard work and team spirit displayed by the participants.

04:50 PM

The judges have taken their place on the stage. They will now be felicitated by our Hon’ble VC, HNLU Prof. (Dr.) VC Vivekanandan. Vice-Chancellor sir will now be addressing the august gathering.

The Vice-Chancellor

He begins by sharing his anecdotes with Prof. Ranbir Singh and admires his prophetic way of living life. He continues by describing the competition as one of the best among the present moot competitions in the legal fraternity. He strongly feels that this edition of HNMCC added a golden feather in the legacy of HNLU.

Student Coordinator, HNMCC, Mr. Paritosh Bisen, follows the Vice Chancellor’s address and presents a consolidated report on HNMCC 2019.

He reflects on the motto of the college to proceed towards achieving excellence and regards this competition as just one of the many ways to achieve the same. He thanks every individual associated with this competition and has a special word for the extraordinary participants and wishes them all the best in their future endeavours.

Prof. (Dr.) Jose P. Verghese, former VC, HNLU and an esteemed judge for the final rounds, is now being called on to deliver his speech.

5:15 PM

Prof. (Dr.) Jose P. Verghese

He begins with the history of the college and the difficulties faced by the administration to convince the government to build the college in Raipur. He congratulates the college on the successful organization of the competition and stresses on the growing culture of mooting in the legal fraternity.

We now await Prof. (Dr.) Manoj Kumar Sinha, Director ILI and one of the judges for the final round, to give his address.

5:28 PM

Prof. (Dr.) Manoj Kumar Sinha

He acknowledges the methodical work done by the faculty and the students and salutes the perseverance of the participants from various law schools. He applauds the college for conducting the competition in an efficient manner.

Prof. (Dr.) S. Shanthakumar is being called on to deliver his address.

5:32 PM

Prof. (Dr.) S Shanthakumar

He shares his past experiences with HNMCC and underlines the significance of Competition Law in the present era. He wishes that the faculty and the students continue hosting this prestigious competition for years to come.

The mic is now being passed on to Prof. (Dr.) A. David Ambrose, Head & Dean, Department of Legal Studies, and Madras University (one of the judges for the final round).

5:38 PM

Prof. (Dr.) A. David Ambrose

He begins his speech by the quote “A good teacher covers the subject, an excellent teacher uncovers it.” He goes ahead with comparing the standard of HNMCC to international competitions. He suggests the students that the budding lawyers should adapt to every situation as these skills come in handy in trying situations. The proficient professor gives valuable advice to the audience and encourages the students to cultivate a habit of reading regularly. He ends his speech with words of encouragement to those who could not win by suggesting that they treat this as an experience to grow.

5:51 PM

Mr. Rakesh Bhanot, Advisor, Competition Commission of India and judge, the final round of HNMCC

He stresses on developing the quality of being articulate in the court and know when and when not to speak in the court of law. He draws the attention towards the dearth of awareness in people towards competition law and expects that a lot of people will choose to specialise in competition law and contribute significantly in this field.
The address by the guest of Honour for the evening, Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, Vice-Chancellor, NLU Delhi has begun.

5: 57 PM

Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh

He talks about his background and the importance of hard work in achieving success. He quotes our former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to emphasize perseverance and passion in order to make a mark. He believes that success stories are a combined and coherent effort of students, teachers and the institution. The professor stressed on the fact that the quality of life lived is of more relevant than the long and passive duration of one’s life.

The presenters are now inviting the Chief Guest for the closing ceremony of HNMCC 2019, Hon’ble Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, High Court of Chhattisgarh.

6:08 PM

Justice Prashant Mishra

The Hon’ble justice narrates how he has been an active member of HNLU’s rich legacy since it’s inception and is very delighted to see the positive change the college has undergone through the years. He shows great confidence in the college and praises our Hon’ble VC sir’s determination and diligence. He highlights the palpable three-dimensional need of legal professionals in this era and encourages the students to contribute highly in the field of law.

The time has now come to finally reward the exceptional teams that have won in various categories in this competition.


WINNERS: School of Law, Sastra University.

Best Memorial: NIRMA University.

Best Researcher: Lakshya Gupta, Jindal Global Law School.

Best Speaker: Anchit Naiyyar, Symbiosis Law School, Pune.

Runners Up: 2 Faculty of Law, Delhi University.

Team HNMCC congratulates all the winners and wishes all the best to all participants in their future endeavours.

For the gallery of images from the valedictory ceremony please follow the link below,














No comments yet: share your views