•  •  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 29-minute read

Live Blog: 15th Amity National Moot Court Competition (ANMCC 2016)

 Email  Facebook  Tweet  Linked-in

Amity Law School, Delhi (affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University) is all set to host the 15th edition of its National Moot Court Competition from Friday, 26th February to Sunday, 28th February.

This year's moot proposition follows the story of the Royal Bilzerian Family of Thelesalonica and the legal issues involve a mix of inheritance laws and the Companies Act, 1956. You can access the proposition here.

The teams battling it out for the top laurels this year are-

  1. National Law School of India University, Bangalore
  2. NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad
  3. Government Law College, Mumbai
  4. West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata
  5. Campus Law Centre, Delhi University
  6. National Law Institute University, Bhopal
  7. Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur
  8. Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  9. Symbiosis Law School, Noida
  10. Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad
  11. School of Law, Christ University
  12. SVKM's NMIMS School of Law, Mumbai
  13. National Law University, Odisha
  14. Chanakya National Law University, Patna
  15. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala
  16. National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi
  17. Tamil Nadu National Law University, Chennai
  18. University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun
  19. Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, Vishakapatnam
  20. Dr. Ambedkar Law University's SOEL, Chennai
  21. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow
  22. Institute of Law, Nirma University
  23. Banasthali Vidyapith, Jaipur
  24. Dr. D Y Patil College of Law
  25. KLE Society's Law College, Bangalore
  26. Vivekanand Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi
  27. School of Law, Sastra University
  28. Faculty of Law, Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University, Lucknow
  29. Faculty of Law, Allahabad University
  30. Saveetha School of Law, Saveetha University
  31. Department of Law, SRM University

The event shall officially begin on 26th February with the team registrations starting at 3 pm. Delhi Lokayukta Hon’ble Ms. Justice Reva Khetrapal and Shri Lalit Bhasin from Bhasin & Co shall then grace us with their presence at the grand inauguration at 4 pm, after which the researchers will have to gear up for the researcher's test at 6 pm. On 27th February, the teams will be grilled by our judges at the prelims and the top 8 teams shall proceed to the Quarter-Finals. The Semi-Finals and the Finals shall be held on 28th February. Finally, the event will culminate at the Valedictory Ceremony where this year's ANMCC Champions shall be announced in the presence of our respected guests, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Siddharth Mridul, Additional Solicitor General Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Mr. Ravi Singhania from Singhania & Partners.

We promise to keep you guys posted with the latest deets here starting from 3 pm on 26th February, so stay tuned! You could also follow us on our Facebook page here!

See you on the 26th, folks!


Day 1 - Registrations, Inauguration and Researcher's Test.

Your reporters for the day are Prafulla Pathak, Gayatri Korgaonkar, Aayush Sharma

3.52 pm:

(Gayatri and Aayush)

Hey folks! So we're almost through with the registrations and the inauguration ceremony will be starting in a few. The registered teams are filing into the Seminar Hall.



7.46 pm

(Gayatri and Prafulla)

Hello, viewers! We apologize for going AWOL, there were some technical difficulties that we needed to figure out. We've finally overcome technology and are back from the virtual dead to give you updates on today's events.

The Inaugural Ceremony began with a short introductory speech by Surabhi Pande and Tulika Chikker, which was followed by a beautiful rendition of the Saraswati Vandana by the College Choir. Then our revered guests Hon'ble Justice Ms. Reva Khetrapal and Mr. Lalit Bhasin obliged us by lighting the ceremonial lamp along with our respected Director Prof. B.P.Singh Sehgal. The podium was also shared by Dr. Isheeta Rutabhasini, Convenor of the ANMC and Dr. M.K Balachandran, our Professor of Eminence and Chair Professor for Law.


In his opening speech our Director, Prof. B.P Singh Sehgal, spoke about the rich heritage of the ANMC & how it has emerged as one of the best Moot Court Competitions of the country also spoke about the thriving mooting culture at Amity Law School, Delhi. He then proceeded to welcome all the participating teams and encouraged them to give their best and to keep an eye on the prize.

When our Chair Professor M.K Balachandran addressed the gathering, he implored us to moot aggressively and passionately. “Moot court is the best law teacher”, he said, for mooting instills immense confidence in the mooter to convincingly argue their points. Addressing the Participants, he said that the most important thing is participation - everyone can't win, but the experience that you take home with you will help you a lot in future.

The Guest of Honour Mr. Lalit Bhasin had a lot of kind things to say about ALSD. Speaking about the college, he said that in his time in association with ALSD, he has seen this law school rise great heights and get enlisted in the top 10 law colleges of the country. He said enjoys events like these as they give him a chance to interact with younger minds which make him feel younger. (You are still pretty young at heart, sir!) He urged the participants to follow their ambitions, but also to give back to society in any ways they can.

Hon'ble Justice Ms. Reva Khetrapal, the Lokayukta of Delhi, had a few things to share about corruption. She said corruption is corrosive enough to seep into the roots of the nation and may ultimately result in its downfall. Speaking about her experience as the Lokayukta she said, India is better off than many countries as Indians can directly approach the ombudsman with their grievances and file complaints directly through letters. Finally, she wished participants the very best of luck.


Finally, the ANMC Convener Dr. Isheeta Rutabhasini made a vote of thanks to all the guests and heartily welcomed the participants. She thanked all the faculty members & volunteers who work tirelessly to make the hosting of such an event possible. (It's always a pleasure, ma'am!)

At the end of the ceremony, the participants proceeded to the High Tea, after which the researchers had to brace themselves for the Researcher's Test. (Hope it went well for you, researchers) Our sponsors SCC Online also held a training session for the participants. The day ended with a draw of lots to decide tomorrow's preliminary match ups and the exchange of memorials between the opposing teams.

Live (no, really this time) reporting begins with the commencement of the first preliminary rounds tommorow at 10 am. See you then!


27th February

Day 2 - Preliminary Rounds

10.18 am

Good morning, viewers! The judges are done with their briefings and the preliminary rounds are about to start. Here's the media team wishing the very best of luck to all the participants! 

Your Reporters for today are Prafulla Pathak, Gayatri Korgaonkar, Anmol Khurana and Anushka Jain.


11.02 am

Most Courtrooms are in the thick with their arguments.

Courtroom 10

Judges are furious about Appellants not carrying Compendium

Speaker 1- "We shall be carrying the same in the next hearing, My Lords."

Judge- "There is no next hearing, this is a competition."

11:10 am

Courtroom 13

Speaker 1 of the Petitioners has taken 28 minutes and left 2 minutes for the co speaker.

Courtroom 4

The second speaker appearing for the appellants is answering the questions confidently and eloquently. Judges look impressed.

11:15 am

Courtroom 16

Judges imparting a cold reaction to the Petitioner's Prayer.

Courtroom 7

The volley of questions is now going back and forth. The speaker for Petitioner is not able to move forward with the arguments due to the number of questions. However, she is still calm and composed. She is answering each question in as calm manner as possible though the Judges are not satisfied with her explanation and ask her to just compile her arguments as she is exceeding the given time.

11:20 am

Courtroom 12

Appellant speaker 2 referred the Bench as "Counsel".

Courtroom 2

Respondent Counsel 1 caught off guard. Judge asks who has to challenge the Jurisdiction of the court to which the Counsel replies 'the Appellant'.

11:23 am

Courtroom 9

Counsel for the respondent addressing the Bench, Judges say that respondents are fighting against the Company, not the stepsons. The respondents have written the name of the company in their Memo instead of the stepsons, resulting the Judges to ask whether the respondents are sure that they are in the right court.

11:24 am

Courtroom 8

The speaker is feeling guilty as she has not read the CPC completely. Hence she apologises to which the Judges say "Don't be sorry".



Courtroom 8 

The speaker hasn't read the memo herself. She apologises again. Moot courts are scary.

Courtroom 10

The first speakers seems to be trying to win over the judges with his smiles and blushes.

Courtroom 5

The Respondents have referenced Indian Kanoon and Vakil No. 1 in their memos. *cringes*

Courtroom 14

It can't get scarier than this court room. The appellants have barely made any arguments and seem super nervous. The judges look pretty disappointed and are trying to help out the speaker by dropping some hints.

Courtroom 6

You could hear how tired the speaker is when he said, "The issue of succession is REALLY an issue."

Courtroom 8

The first judge starts eating food as the second judge stares at the white walls of the Court Room, while the defendant feels sorry for the third time in one breath.

 11. 29 am

Courtroom 10

Judges are impressed by how thorough Speaker 2 is with the Indian Succession Act. Looks like she'll give our family law profs a run for their money!

Courtroom 12

Judge - "Why are you trying to establish Intention when you haven't established whether what you issue is about?"


Courtroom 4

The judges try to catch the speaker off guard. "Your arguments amount to putting words in the mouth of a deceased person."

Courtroom 7 -

Judge to the speaker when he was done with his prayer - "Letting you go is the real prayer."

Courtroom 3 

The Respondent counsels seem to have really muddled up understanding of the Bilzerian family tree.



Courtroom 14 

The Respondents' speaker is trying to argue that any person who indulges in wine and women is of unsound mind!

Courtroom 10 

Our reporter wanted us to specially mention the researcher from the Respondent team, who was really well prepared for the rounds and was thorough with his compendium.

12.17 pm

Most of the court rooms are done with their first matchup. We have the second match up starting in Court Room 3 in five minutes.

12:54 pm

Second round of Match ups has started in most of the Courtrooms.

Courtroom 4

The speaker of the Petitioners wants to know whether the Mic is working or not? Looks like he's got some powerful points to make.

Courtroom 16

First Speaker of the Appellant is speaking at such a pace that he can even outdo a Pandit chanting mantras.

Courtroom 7

Finally the Matchup begins but at the very first minute the Speaker for the petitioners by mistake introduces herself as as the Respondent. Oops!!


1:05 p.m.

Courtroom 8.

The principal question of the Judges, " Whether a High Court Judgement is binding on the Supreme Court?" Always be prepared for this one guys!

In a classic reversal of roles, one of the participants seems to remark 'Very well-done' to the Judge, but soon she realised what she did. :P



1:08 pm

Courtroom 2

The Judge asks Appellants to be clear in their references. "You're not in a Janta Court" says the Judge.

Courtroom 13

The Petitioners are not well versed with the facts of the cases cited in their Memo, they say it's a Typo error... Judges are having a good laugh.

1:17 pm

Courtroom 16

Second Speaker from Petitioner setting a good array of 'Umms..' if he was paid a Dollar for every Umm...he could easily pay off Kanye West's debts.

1.49 pm

Courtroom 14

The mixed questions of law and fact have perplexed both the Teams and none of them are able to answer whether this is a question of law or fact and if both what should be the ideal procedure?

Courtroom 12

Respondents refer to the Lady Judge as 'My Lady'

The second Judge asks "Is she your Lady"?

Courtroom 4

Judge- "We would ask you to move on to the preyer but your Prayer doesn't say anything except to dismiss the Petition".

Respondents- "We would also ask your Lordship to deem any other Order that is in favour of the Respondents".


The appellants have asked for Re 1 as relief for their party when asked by Judges.


Courtroom 7

The Judges inform the already nervous speakers that all Questions shall be reseved till the end.

Courtroom 9

The Respondents who seem to be well researched pull out a case very similar to the present one. On being questioned whether it's binding on the Supreme Court, they state with a smile that it has a persuasive value.

Courtroom 7

The Judges are quite flustured now as they repeatedly have to correct the speakers on the facts.

Courtroom 9

The matchup is over, where the general level of research does not seem to be very high.

Courtroom 11

One of the Respondent who asked for a chance to clarify her point was refused as Judges said it would amount to a seperate argument.

Arguments in all Courtrooms have been concluded for the First two Preliminary Rounds. Scores have been marked and feedbacks have been given, everyone eagerly awaits for the list of Top 8. See you soon!

3.36 pm 


We're back with the results, viewers!

The teams that have qualified for the Quarter Finals are, in no particular order -

1. NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad

2. National Law School of India University, Bangalore

3. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow

4. Institute of Law, Nirma University

5. Campus Law Centre, Delhi University

6. Symbiosis Law School, Pune

7. Symbiosis Law School, Noida

8. School of Law, Sastra University.

The live blogging shall resume with the commencement of Quarters at 4.30 pm. Till then, you can check out all the new photos uploaded on our Facebook page!


 4:46 pm

The presiding Judges for the Quarter Finals are

In Courtroom 1-

Rajeev Virmani, Jayshree Chandra, Rahul Narayan

In Courtroom 2-

Anant Haskar, Sujoy Bhatia, Tejveer Bhatia

In Courtroom 3-

Sohail Dutt, Daksh Ahluwalia, Mohit Paul

In Courtroom 4-

Pradeep Dewan, Kanwal D P Singh, Animesh Sinha 

The rounds will begin shortly, stay tuned for more.

 5.07 pm

(Prafulla and Gayatri)

Match ups have started in courtrooms 1 and 3.

Courtroom 3 -

Honourable judges are scrutinising the memorials and the atmosphere in the courtroom is a little tense.

The judges are throwing fireballs at the Appellants, but the Speaker seems to handling it well.

Courtroom 1 -

The 1st speakers looks very calm and composed. He is managing to answer all questions of the Hon'ble Bench calmly and satisfactorily. 

5.25 pm

Courtroom 2 -

The match up has just started. The judges on the bench look very intimidating and very well versed with the law at hand.

Courtroom 3 -

The speaker is getting all the points for his court craft. The judges are trying to test the knowledge of the speaker by asking them whether the interpretation of a will is a matter of fact or that of law.

Courtroom 4 -

The judges have arrived. The counsel for the appellant has approached the dais.

5.33 pm

Courtroom 2 -

One of the Respondent's phones rang in the courtroom. Oh, no.

Courtroom 4 -

The counsel is discussing the limitations of Section 10(f) of the Companies Act, 1956. The counsel seems confident in his speech. 

Now, the judges have moved on to ask the counsel about the limitations of powers of the High Court.

5.39 pm

Courtroom 3 -

The speaker's way of blending blending precedents with contentions and fluency with the facts of the referenced cases is impressive. The discussion has moved on to the Jal Mahal case.

Courtroom 4 -

The judges are hurling curveballs at the speaker! She's trying to match the pace, but the judges are relentless. Nevertheless, the efforts are appreciated by the bench. The final question the judges pose to her is whether res judicata applies in this case or not.

Courtroom 2 -

The judges are grilling the speaker about the process of granting a testamentary certificate.

 5.46 pm

Courtroom 2 -

 The second speaker of the appellant seems to be beating around the bush.

Courtroom 1 -

Appellants have made their submissions. The Respondent's first speaker is approaching the dais.

Courtroom 4 -

The first speaker's efforts were praiseworthy! And her co-counsel is equally good! 

 Courtroom 2 -

The reporter of this courtrooms feels that the speaker believes in the "If you can't convince them, confuse them."

5.59 pm

Courtroom 3 -

The first speaker ofthe Respondent has very cleverly countered his opponents' arguments.

Courtroom 1 -

You can hear the appellants' pens scratching as they furiously note down rebuttals to the Respondent speaker's arguments.

Courtroom 2 -

Respondent's first speaker seems to be arguing with a laidback approach, with one hand in her pocket behind the podium. However, the judges don't rebuke her as she convinces the judges with her arguments. She goes on to speak an uninterrupted 10 minutes. Taking off her specs in the middle of the speech, she seems to make emotional arguments 

Courtroom 3 -

The second speaker gets a death stare from the researcher for stating a wrong section in his speech.

Courtroom 2 -

The first speaker from the Respondent's side is still on the second issue, with only five minutes left to argue her last issue. A judge's question throw the speaker off track. She takes a few minutes to gather herself and respond with a Supreme Court judgement.

The judges deliberate and laugh at the intricacies of the relations in the proposition.

Courtroom 3 -

The appellants begin with their rebuttals. The judges have obliged the Respondents by allowign a surebuttal.

Courtroom 4 -

Mr. Sinha asks the counsel if the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction.

6.26 pm

Courtroom 1 -

The second speaker for the respondents counters a case cited by the appellants's counsels with another case law. Though both cases are High Court judgements, the judges seem satisfied.

Courtroom 2 -

Speaker 2 from the Respondent side seems to be making unreasonable interpretations from the facts of the case, stating that the appellants have a majority of the shares in the company when actually the facts are silent on the same.

Courtroom 4 -

The speaker for the Respondent is using the questions the judges asked the appellant's counsels to substantiate her arguments. The judges seem impressed.

Courtroom 3 -

The counsel for the Respondents smirks as he makes his surebuttals. 

Courtroom 2 -

The second speaker for the Respondent moves onto his last issue with only five minutes remaining. He bases his argument on the arguendo of the probate being granted in favour of Queen Kim.

Courtroom 4 -

The judges ask whether the High Court has the power to adjudicate over pending disputes. The speaker responds with difference between res judicata and res subjudice.

Courtroom 1 -

The respondents are through with their surebuttals. They look tense as the judges fill their scoresheets.

6.43 pm

Courtroom 4

The respondent's speaker mentions something not stated in the facts of the case.

Courtrooms 1 and 3 are through with their match ups. 

Courtrooms 2 and 4 shall be done with their rounds soon.

8.56 pm


Hello, friends! The results are out! The teams qualifying for the Semi Finals of ANMCC 2016 are, in no particular order -

1. National Law School University of India, Bangalore

2. Symbiosis Law School, Pune

3. Symbiosis Law School, Noida

4. Institute of Law, Nirma University.

A hearty congratulations from the Media committee to the teams! 

The Semis are scheduled to begin at 10.30 am tomorrow. Live blogging to resume accordingly.

Have a good night, folks!

 28th February 2016

Day 3 - Semi Finals, Finals, Valedictory Ceremony

Your reporters for the day are Gayatri Korgaonkar and Prafulla Pathak.

10.44 am

(Gayatri and Prafulla)

Good morning! The Semi Finals have begun. We're obliged to have Hon'ble Ms. Justice Deepa Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ved Prakash Vaish as judges in courtroom 1 and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjeet Singh Mehta and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Sangita Dhingra as judges in courtroom 2.

We have SLS, Pune against NLSIU, Bangalore in Courtroom 1 and SLS,Noida against Institute of Law, Nirma University.

10:57 am

Courtroom 1

SLS Pune is contesting that all the essentials of res judicata have been met and therefore the High Court has erred in deciding the dispute. Their first speaker smoothly transitioned from her first to her second issue.

Courtroom 2

The judges expect the first speaker of INLU to apply the law to the facts. Sangita Dhingra J. is presenting situations to the speaker and asking her to apply the law to that situation. The judges seem unsatisfied by the application of law to the analogy.

 11.05 am

Courtroom 1 

The second speaker of the appellants relies on S.383 of the Indian Succession Act to state that the succession certificate becomes inoperative because of new circumstances. The judges are not indulging in questions and answers as they seem convinced with the SLS, Pune's first speaker's submissions.

Courtroom 2

Judges wish the speaker to talk about the circumstances under which a will can be challenged. The speaker starts stuttering. The judges continue to provide analogies to help the speaker out, he promptly answers.


11.11 am

Courtroom 1

Appellant speaker 2 moves on to his last issue to prove that probate proceedings are proceedings in rem and not in personam. Judges seek some clarifications as to the facts of the case.

Courtroom 2

Judges do not allow the SLS, Noida's second speaker to recite the prayer. ILNU's first speaker approaches the dais.

11.14 am

Courtroom 1

Judges ask the second speaker of SLS Pune as to what relief the appellants are seeking from the Court.Deepa Sharma J. is indulging in constructive quention and answers with the speaker, making him think in depth about his flow of arguments and subsequently clarify it for the bench.

Courtroom 2

The speaker makes his submissions with flare. The judges have not interrupted him so far.

11.21 am

Courtroom 1

Sharma J. insists the the speaker isn't clear with the facts, but calmly tries to help the speaker understand the facts, but the speaker stands her ground with her understanding of the proposition. They discuss whether the probate and succession certificates were granted in the same proceedings.

Courtroom 2 

Speaker 1 of ILNU seems to be well versed with the Company Court Rules and also effortlessly quotes CPC provisions. She rebuts the appellants' contentions while establishing her arguments.

 11.25 am

Courtroom 1 

The judge questions the SLS Pune's speaker 2 that if they don't agree with King Ray's will then how can they rely on the same to make their case?

Courtroom 2 

Speaker 1 of ILNU asserting the fact that the High Court had jusrisdiction in the matter by citing a Supreme Court judgement. She refers to the para of her memo and interprets what is question of law and how is it different from a question of fact. 

11.34 am

Courtroom 1

NLS' speaker 1 contends that High Court correctly exercised the jurisdiction under S.10F of the Companies Act.

Courtroom 2

The intent of the testator whilst making the will is now a point of discussion between the first speaker of the respondents and the judges. 

11.39 am

Courtroom 2

Speaker 1 of the respondents agrees that there is a thin line between law and the fact in the present case, however still keeping firm on her stance that it is a matter of law.

The speaker refers to Zahir Ahamd v Ganga Prasad case.

Courtroom 1 

The judges listen to the speaker's arguments intently. They seem convinced and ask the speaker to move on to the next submission. The next question is about a valid question of law.

Courtroom 2

The second speaker's arguments focus on what constitutes as prima facie evidence. She contends that it is unreasonable to think that the holder of the certificate has no interest in the estate. Refers to the judgement Anjanaya v. Nagappa.


11:55 am

Courtroom 1

The speaker asks for extra time which the judges grant. She convinces the judges with her arguments and wraps up. The judges don't interrupt her with any questions.

Courtroom 2

The speaker tries to establish the connection between the respondents and the estate and that there is no locus standi of the appellants. The judges are convinced. The speaker proceeds with the next issue.

12.01 pm

Courtroom 1

The judges ask the speaker a question about the lapse of probate proceedings. The speaker wishes to addfress the issue later, the judge insists that this be addressed right now. The judge asks which court is competent to decide on the lapse of the proceedings. Sharma J. asks the speaker to think and tell her if she is making contradicting statements related to probate proceedings.

Courtroom 2

The speaker is through with his arguments. He recites the prayer to dismiss the appellants' petition.

The appellant's speaker is making their rebuttals. Says that the respondents have changed the ratio of the cases cited in the memorial and are trying to mislead the court. They state that the respondents have named the wrong parties and beating around the bush. The speaker goes on to point out every footnote that the respondents have erred in.

The judges chuckle as the appellant's speaker rebuts passionately. He stands on his toes as he rebuts the respondents' arguments, literally.

12.12 pm

Courtroom 1

The judge asks the second speaker of the respondents to pay attention to the facts of the case. The judge insists that the speaker is making contradictory statements by saying that Queen Kim was the ownerand and acknowledging her right by implying that the will was executed and the probate proceedings were in her favour.

Courtroom 2

The judges are telling the speaker rebutting the respondent should get time to argue. However, speaker for the appelant continues to beg for some more time, which the judges refuse.

12.19 pm

Courtroom 1

The judges laugh, saying the issues have been wrongly framed in using the term 'lapses'. Sharma J. jokes that the counsel should ask for permission to correct the language of her arguments. The judges ask her move with the presumption that they don't follow what the speaker is trying to say as the respondent speaker cites a caselaw without presenting a copy of the judgement.

The appellants move on to their rebuttals swiftly. The second speaker of the respondent is also done with the surebuttals. Courtroom 1 is done with the matchup.

Courtroom 2

Respondents are now presenting their surebuttals. The speaker is able to satisfy the judges on how they've relied on valid judgements, then blames the appellant speaker for not understanding the respondents' contentions. 

The first speaker of SLS Noida gets emotional and says to Sangeeta J. that citing cases in a misleading fashion keads to the prevention of justice, they asked for CCTV footage! Sangeeta J. tells everyone to calm down, and says it is upto the organizing committee to allow this, and they're only here to judge their performances. The match up ended with this altercation. 



1.53 pm

The teams going into the Finals are Symbiosis Law School, Pune and Institute of Law, Nirma University. The finals rounds will commence in the F1 Seminar Hall in a few minutes.


The Finals


2.19 pm

Hello, friends. The finals are about to begin. The participants are disheartened after having been told that their speaking time has been reduced to 45 minutes. The teams are reworking their time divisions and deliberating on how to adapt their submissions to the reduced speaking time.

2.44 pm

The judges - Manmohan Singh J. and Suresh Kait J. - have arrived. The first speaker of the Appellants (ILNU) has approached the dais and puts forth the statement of jurisdiction, touching upon the facts of the case and S. 111 of the Companies Act. She places importance upon the Partition suit and states pertinent authority to substantiate her points.

2.49 pm

The speaker guides the judges through her memorial smoothly, requesting them to referring them to precedents while making her submissions. She contends that the essentials of Section 10F are not fulfilled and thus, the High Court is incorrect in deciding the matter. She now moves on to her second issue. 

3.02 pm

Manmohan J.asks for the speaker's opinion as to whether there is an adequate remedy available with the High Court or not. 

The counsel contends that the High Court has encroached upon the jurisdiction of the probate court, and reiterates the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in the matter.

3.07 pm

The speaker has started with her third issue. Manmohan J. points out that it is a matter of fact since it is in the presence of two witnesses. The speaker contends that the interpretation of a will necessarily becomes a question of fact.

Finally, the speaker summarises her issues. 

- That the High Court has not rightly exercised its jurisdiction in the impugned matter and

- That there is no question of law.

 It's the second speaker's turn to make his submissions before the honourable judges.


3.13 pm

The second speaker substantiates his arguments with very well framed illustrations. He emphasises on how the succession certificates cannot be operative. He places reliance on a factual matrix that he creates before the judges and puts forth the argument that it is still controversial whether Queen Kim had the property or not and whether she had entered into a valid contract or not. He vehemently contesting that it is prima facie evidence. 

The counsel reiterates his contentions

- That the certificate in inoperative, whether valid or not. 

- That the legal effects that the Respondents contend do not follow and the evidence placed in unreliable.

-  That the efforts of S.381 do not apply in the impugned matter because the succession certificate in this case is inoperative.

3.25 pm

The landmark case of Jai Mahal is not applicable in the present matter as the probate petition has not been withdrawn in that case, contrary to what happened in the present matter.

3.29 pm 

"How does a person stand if all his three legs are deficient?", says the speaker. Cut him some slack, mooting is tiresome.

3.31 pm

The appellant's second speaker has recited his prayer. Now, the first speaker for the Respondents has approached the dais.

She asserts that the High Court was justified in deciding the matter under Section 10F of the Companies Act. She argues that the refusal of the company to grant shares was not in conformity with the Articles of Association, so the High Court is justified in deciding.

She contends that the Respondents are valid, legal representatives and that they have absolute right over the property. She states that no statutory provisions regarding the fact that upon the death of one of the persons over the certificate, it becomes inoperative. The precedents that she cites, however, are not recent and therefore their applicability is questionable.

3.46 pm

The speaker contends that the Company Law Board erred in its judgement and their inaction upon the certificate, even after jurisdiction and so High Court adjudicated upon the same, thereby not exceeding its jurisdiction.

"There is a thin line betwen the contentions of the appellants and the respondents." - Manmohan Singh J.

3.52 pm

The second speaker argues the High Court rightly adjudicated the matter and that res subjudice is not applied in the present matter.

Doctrine of incidental adjudication is currently being discussed.

3.58 pm

The second speaker for the Respondents is speaking issue about probate proceedings, she divided her submission into 2 parts. She contends that res judicata doesn't apply as the High Court did not completely adjudicate over the questions pending before the lower court.

Referring to the paragraphs of judgements effortlessly, she satisfies the judges of her second isue and moves on to her third submission. 

4.04 pm

She divides her submission into three parts: that Queen Kim is the sole beneficiary as per the arguments by respondents and so she has an undisputed title, that Queen Kim is the undisputed heir of King Ray's property and that she says that the probate court has to prove the genuineness of the will.

She argues that the rights of the appellants are not substantially barred.

The appellant's speaker takes over the dais for the rebuttals.

 The respondent's speaker is done with his surebuttals. 

4.12 pm

Singh J. says he is very impressed with the teams' performances. And we're finally done with the Finals.



The Valedictory Ceremony


4:35 pm

Our esteemed Director, Dr. Prof. B.P. Singh Sehgal has taken over the dais to deliver the welcome address.

The Valedictory Ceremony is witnessing the likes of

CHIEF GUEST- Hon'ble Justice Siddharth Mridul, Judge Delhi High Court

GUEST OF HONOUR- Mr. Neeraj Kaul, Additional Solicitor General of India



4:50 pm

Our Chair Professor Dr. M K Balachandran graces the audience with his kind words.

5:05 pm

The Convener's Speech is delivered by Student Conveners Ms. Vrinda Bagaria and Ms. Sana Malik.

5:10 pm

ANMCC'16 - the After Moot Movie, a short movie containing glimpses of the competition is being showcased during the Valedictory Ceremony.

5:20 pm

Guest of Honour Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul now takes on the dais and shares his thoughts.

5:26 pm

Amidst the warm applause, Justice Siddharth Mridul takes the stage. On a lighter note, he mentions that he is an ardent fan of Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan and Jim Morrison. The reporter feels the Ceremony is pretty amazing in itself as Justice Mridul brings life to an often dreary Valedictory Ceremony by adding an Urdu Sher into the mix.

Honourable Sir receives uproarious applause from the audience as he ends his speech with the sher "Khudi ko kar buland itna ke har taqdeer se pehle khuda bande se ye pooche bata teri raza kya hai".

5:35 pm

Certificates are now being presented to all the participating teams, but the wait for results is honestly getting to our nerves! *Deep breaths*



So, finally the results are announced in a breathtaking moment, and they are-


BEST MEMO - Symbiosis Law School, Pune

2ND BEST SPEAKER - Brihan Mathur, Institute of Law, Nirma University

BEST SPEAKER - Kosheel Gupta, NLSIU, Bangalore

RUNNERS UP - Symbiosis Law School, Pune

WINNERS - Institute of Law, Nirma University

 Alongwith the gorgeous trophy, the winners take away with them a cash prize of a whopping Rs.20000 and also a Platinum access card of SCC Online Web Edition. The Runners up get a Rs.15000 cash prize.



The enthusiasm in the audience is barely contained and here are the results-

5th Year: Ravin Kapur

4th Year: Govind Chaudhari

3rd Year: Vristhi Vij and Ashita Alag

2nd Year: Mani Bhusan Jha



 5:55 pm

ANMC Convener Ms. Isheeta Rutabhasini made a vote of thanks and expressed her gratitude to all the Volunteers for making the event a grand success and having this six month endeavour finally come to its conclusion, She showed gratitude towards Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul for stressing on making mooting compulsory. She also applauded the 4th Year batch for brilliantly running the show, She said everytime she thinks it cannot be better, the fourth year proves her wrong. 

She also thanked ponsors for providing the necessary support to make the event a huge success.

And then we broke for High Tea.




And so with this, the ANMCC 2016 has finally come to an end. We really appreciate everyone who has been tuning in and encouraging us with their kind words. We hope the participants and the judges had a great ANMC experience.

Here's the media team signing off. Until next year! 

















Click to show 6 comments
at your own risk
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.