•  •  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

NLUO-Maritime Law Moot Court Competition, 2014

Catch the action live as it unfolds here at NLU,Odisha in the First Edition of the National Maritime Law Moot Court Competition, 2014

An estimated 23-minute read
 Email  Facebook  Tweet  Linked-in

Hello & welcome to the live-blog of the 1st edition of National Law University Odisha's Maritime Law Moot Court Competition! Over a span of three days, teams from all across the nation will battle it out to win the title of the 'Maritime Law Masters'. The dates for the Competition are set for 21st of March to 23rd March, 2014 and we will be updating you on all that goes down right here! 



The results of the Finals will be released in the Valedictory Ceremony scheduled to start at about 5:30 PM.

The Valedictory ceremony is underway and the results will be uploaded as soon as they are announced. Stay tuned for more! 

The Results

Winner: National Law Institute University (NLIU), Bhopal take 20,000 INR home

Runners up: National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR), Hyderabad take 12,000 INR home

Best Speaker: Akansha Singh from Jindal Global Law School (JGLS), Sonipat takes 5,000 INR home

Best Memorial: National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Kochi take 5,000 INR home

The Organizing Committee congratulates the participants on their brilliant performance!! 



The list of teams participating in the 1st NLUO- Maritime Law Moot Court Competition are,

  1. NUALS, Kochi
  2. RGNUL, Patiala
  3. NALSAR, Hyderabad
  4. NUJS, Kolkata
  5. NLIU, Bhopal
  6. GNLU, Gandhinagar
  7. ILS, Pune
  8. Campus Law Center, DU, New Delhi
  9. JGLS, Sonipat
  10. SVKM, Mumbai
  11. UPES, Dehradun
  12. SOEL, Chennai
  13. Nirma, Ahmedabad
  14. SLS Noida
  15. AMU, Faculty of Law, Aligarh
  16. VIPS, Delhi
  17. SLS, Cochin
  18. MLC, Cuttack
  19. TNNLS, Trichy


We thank our sponsors for backing us throughout the event. This Competition is powered by Paradip Port Trust as the Title Sponsor alongwith Dhamra Port Company Limited (JV of Larsen & Toubro and Tata Steel) as the Event Partner and SCC-Online Eastern Book Company Pvt. Ltd. as the Knowledge Partner.

The full photo album will be accessible in a day or two, on the following links,



There are going to be three sessions of prelims & the first one begins at 9:30 AM sharp.


The Court-room drama unfolds!

10:20 AM

 The match-ups for the 1st session are,

  1. ILS, Pune v MLC, Cuttack
  2. VIPS, Delhi v SOEL, Chennai
  3. TNNLS, Trichy v GNLU, Gandhinagar
  4. UPES, Dehradun v NALSAR, Hyderabad
  5. NUALS, Kochi v CLC, Delhi
  6. Symbiosis, Noida v NUJS, Kolkata
  7. RGNUL, Patiala v SVKM Pravin Gandhi College of Law, Mumbai

The rounds are already underway and details are to follow soon

10:30 AM

Court-room 1: ILS & MLC are locking horns in this room with ILS, Pune as the Petitioners having started the oral submissions. The first speaker is calm, a trait that will do her well considering the fact that the Judges started grilling her on questions of law even before the statement of facts. So far, she seems to have satisfied the judges with their queries and has faltered only on one judgment, the facts of which she couldn't properly describe.

Court-room 7: 10 minutes into the round, the petitioner, RGNUL, Patiala is still being grilled on the merits of the case. The Judges want an answer as to how the Court can venture into fact finding on merits when the Order has been passed otherwise.

10:45 AM

Court-room 3: The Team from TNNLS is trying its best to answer the queries of the Judges. However, there seems to be some discrepancy between the oral and written submissions. It's a crucial time for the second speaker as this can be the 'make-or-break' moment for them. Latter portion is witnessing more questions on facts of the case than law.

Court-room 2: VIPS, Delhi have given their best and their submissions have ended. The respondents, SOEL Chennai have started presenting their case and their style of argumentation is pretty agressive. No clue as to how the Judges will mark this one.


One of the Teams hearing their opponents out!

Court-room 4: Speaker 1 from UPES seems well-prepared but nerves got the better of him, with jurisidiction coming out to be the sole point of focus across many courtrooms. The second speaker kept things to the point and judges follow through with an intense discussion with the speaker .The team from NALSAR cites a recent case at the onset of submissions; judges seem satisfied. Speaker refers to notes frequently, but is a confident speaker.

Court-room 5: Speakers from NUALS speaks with overtones of confidence and hardwork and judges seem delighted to see the answers being responded to, without any referral to the written submissions. The speakers from CLC, DU responded with every ounce of panache but intense grilling led them off-track towards the end of their speeches.

Court room 6: SLS Noida is a team in a hurry. Speaker seems logical & gives impression of complete control, having answered every question reassuringly. NUJS is riddled with a volley of questions. Speaker falters, but recovers everytime.

The first session has come to an end, with many a ship hitting the rocks while some managed to navigate safely. The second session will begin in some time. Ready the warships!

Session 2- The match-ups for this session are,

  1. SLS Cochin v ILS, Pune
  2. JGLS, Sonipat v VIPS, Delhi
  3. NIRMA, Ahmedabad v TNNLS, Trichy
  4. NLIU, Bhopal v UPES, Dehradun
  5. AMU, Aligarh v NUALS, Kochi
  6. SVKM Pravin Gandhi College of Law v SLS Noida 

12:10 PM

The rounds for the second session have just started.

Court-room 3: Quite some action in this one as the speaker from Nirma asked to state prayer in the opening minutes of her submission. This left the speaker flustered. All depends on how she handles things henceforth. 

Court-room 6: The scene here is completely different from others. SVKM Pravin Gandhi College of Law has taken an assertive stand & the juges are patiently hearing him out. 

Court-room 4: Time has been given importance here and the first speaker from NLIU has had to answer a lot of questuions on Contract Law which was the bone of contention throughout her arguments. She was asked to summarize and now the second speaker is picking up from where she left.

12:30 PM

Court-room 1: Nobody seems to be clear on the point of jurisdiction here as both the speakers submitted to the Court that they won't be dealing with it. The Judges spent some time explaining the importance of the same and this might reflect on the marks of SLS, Cochin. For now, the speakers from ILS, Pune have begun their submissions and are doing a satisfactory job with the specifics of law and facts.

Court-room 5: Intense arguments flowing from the judges to the speakers and vice-versa. The team from AMU has so far been unable to substantiate their issues but they are holding on to their ground. The Judges are very meticulous and pointing out the minutest of errors.

Court-room 4: The respondent from UPES is spewing authorities and what's more, he seems to well-versed with the facts of each & every one of them. The Judges are impressed with the co-relation of facts in the present matter and facts of the cases they've cited.

Court-room 6: All's not well here as the team from SVKM had to face a tough time during the latter half. Jurisdiction again came to haunt them & continued till the second speech as well. Also, an attempt to mock the other team did not go down well with the judges who made the team concede on some material facts. 

Definitely the courtroom to be in. Respondents bludgeon through convincingly. The courtroom is dynamic; judges are keen on seeking a practical solution to the problem and are involving both teams simultaneously. 

12:50 PM

Court-room 7: The soft-spoken Judges are pulling off a Francis Underwood and are trying to make the team from Jindal concede to certain issues but JGLS has kept its battle-guns ready; one definitely gets the impression that there has been some critical fore-thought to the answers.

Respondents from VIPS started on a shaky note but have managed to come on course.

Court-room 5: As reported earlier, the Judges of this courtroom are very particular on law and are not allowing any leeway on the same. The team from NUALS is a facing a tough time keeping up with the Judges' expectations but has succeeded in maintaining composure.  

1:15 PM

The second session has also come to an end at this juncture. All the teams are now proceeding for a group photo-shoot, essentially a pictorial souvenir from NLUO to all the participants.

1:30 PM

Lunch follows for the participants, and instantly serves as a ready break for participants to catch their breath in the midst of a very busy morning. Some use it to get some rest, while others are raring to go and have taken the break to prepare on some final details.

Third Session

The Third Session will be beginning shortly. The match-ups for the same are,

  1. MLC, Cuttack v SLS, Cochin
  2. SOEL, Chennai v RGNUL, Patiala
  3. GNLU, Gandhinagar v JGLS, Sonipat
  4. NALSAR, Hyderabad v Nirma, Ahmedabad
  5. CLC, Delhi v NLIU, Bhopal
  6. NUJS, Kolkata v AMU, Aligarh

3:30 PM

Court-room 6: Some really brilliant arguments from the team NUJS on issues of 'causal link' & 'jurisdiction'. The judges seem to have taken a back-seat and are letting the counsel lead the arguments at his own pace.

Things have started going downhill for NUJS now or atleast that's what appears from the faces on the Bench. 


AMU shoot themselves in the foot as an error catches the eye of the Judge and they have some explaining to do. 

Court-room 5: Proactive is a small word for the Judges of this Courtroom. There has been a volley of questions from the Bench and the speakers of CLC, Delhi have been left speechless on multiple occassions. The last we heard, one of the Judges tried to confuse the team on points of fact but the team navigated through that one. However, points of law especially 'amendment of contract' seems to be the central focus and both the speakers have been unable to answer it satisfactorily.


As earlier reported, the Bench does not spare NLIU either. Regular quips in addition to the barrage of questions have kept the teams at their heels and has made it a test of nerves for them. 

Quips continue well into Rebuttals. 

Court-room 3: The second speaker from GNLU employed an interesting ploy. He's gone on record to say that he's not satisfied with a particular argument advanced by his co-counsel & he'll be further elaborating on it. The Judges chuckled but it might prove to be his day as they are attentively listening to it as Jindal looks on.


JGLS has begun with their contentions and confidence seems to be their mantra. This is holding them in good stead as the Judges are firing questions and their facial expressions are not suggestive of a positive response to the answers.

Court-room 4: NALSAR is facing off Nirma in this one. The Judges have given a tough time to the team from NALSAR with one of the Judges giving the team from down South a tough time for being confused on facts. In this moment of panic, an argument was made for military intervention in the high seas and this further added fuel to the fire. Somebody needs to do their homework & a lot of ground still needs to be covered.


It's now Nirma's turn to face the heat as the Judges step on the thermostat. Speaker makes valiant efforts to hold her ground, but its becoming difficult. 

Court-room 1: Jurisdiction again becomes the thorn, much to the dread of the applicants. The local team, MLC is squaring off against SLS, Cochin in this courtroom and the Judges are relentless. They feign surprise at a particular argument presented and almost immediately begin a high-intenity salvo of questions. 

4:27 PM

The courtrooms are fast emptying as the teams and judges proceed for a break before the results are announced! Teams seem tired but excited. 

Results to be announced around 5:30 PM.

5:45 PM

Qualifying Results 

The results are out for the quarter- finals & the match-ups are,

  1. RGNUL, Patiala v NALSAR, Hyderabad
  2. NLIU, Bhopal v GNLU, Gandhinagar
  3. ILS, Pune v SLS, Noida
  4. JGLS, Sonipat v NUALS, Kochi

The rounds will begin at around 6:30 PM.

6:40 PM (Quarter Finals)

Court-room 1: RGNUL, Patiala v NALSAR, Hyderabad

The first speaker has just concluded his arguments. The heat of the quarters is already showing with the three-judge bench being very strict on any mistakes or faults on the part of the teams. One of the Judges pointed out that the cases mentioned in the oral arguments have long been over-ruled and hold no authority. Moreover, he was grilled heavily on Jurisdiction with the bench stating, "Is the Supreme Court supposed to function as a Trial Court by taking the case on merits?" Article 136 seems to be the favourite among all the Judges. Also, the delay in approaching the Supreme Court (1.5 years) to be precise is another point where the speaker had to show his presence of mind in order to wade through.

NALSAR seems to have learned its lesson from the prelims and a very changed face of NALSAR came to the fore here. They've become more confident and assertive and the Judges seem to be satisfied with their submissions. That's not to say that there have been glitches with one of the speakers being asked to reconsider her statement on one of the issues.

The rebuttals were spectacular in their own regard with the speaker from NALSAR so eager to deliver that she ended up completing the rebuttals under 30 seconds and that too in a very structured manner. Judges took note of it but will they be marked positively for this? Only time will tell.

Court-room 2: NLIU, Bhopal v GNLU, Gandhinagar

NLIU has pleaded a very reserved case with the Bench asking questions from time to time. All in all, their submissions were largely accepted. The NLIU speakers are a figure of confidence and well-preparedness. All quereies pointing out the background of various cases are answered with largely convincing answers. 


GNLU speakers are keenly intent on maintaining their composure. They remain calm, yet are constantly managing to drive home the point. Judges seem thoughtful and are questioning every authority and argument on its merit. Judges try to pile on questions but speaker clears the rubble every time. 

Court-room 3: ILS, Pune v SLS, Noida

The Moot Problem has a facet of jurisdiction which deals with the competency of Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court. Coincidentally, the team from Pune is vouching for the Bombay High Court and the team from Noida for the Delhi High Court. The speaker from ILS was asked to substantiate his submissions with authorities and so far he seems to be doing good. The tough stance employed by the Bench hasn't shaken his composure nor frayed his nerves. This, added to his thorough knowledge of the memorial and authorities rings good news for the ILS team. Unless SLS, Noida has some tricks up their sleeves, ILS might seal this one.

The speakers from the young law school of SLS, Noida were assertive and quite agressive. Both the speakers seem to have a flair for debating and that's saying a lot on their energy and aggression. However, its not been all 'smooth sailing' for them with ignorance being pleaded on being asked about the facts, in more than one instance.

Court-room 4: JGLS, Sonipat v NUALS, Kochi

A very confident and assertive start from JGLS peppered with structured arguments  & reasoned analysis. This trick seems to have worked with the Bench having switched to a "moderate" mode. However, she needs to show her mettle during the latter part of the submission where most questions will be taken up. So far, the Judges have put up questions on the competency of the Court & Public Policy. A prominent feature is that points of fact have taken a back-seat and the teams are being made to utter specific legal knowledge on various points. Lack of this is not being taken well by the Judges with them making no efforts to hide their bafflement on the same. 


For NUALS, the bench is currently a landmine. Counsel seems like he could be blown off with one wrong step. Now, it's a layrinth. Respondents do not like what's coming, but are doing a valiant job of holding up their end.


The four teams to make it through to the Semis are,

  1. NALSAR, Hyderabad
  2. NLIU, Bhopal
  3. SLS Noida
  4. JGLS, Sonipat

The match-ups for the semi-finals are,

NLIU v SLS Noida



(DAY 3; 10:30 AM)

First Semi-Final

The rounds have begun at 10:30 AM. More details coming soon. First up is NLIU v SLS Noida.

NLIU has made a confident start to the 1st round of Semi-finals. Also, we will be refraining from pointing out the questions posed to the participants as the second semi-final will be conducted after the first one with the same Bench presiding over them as well. Doing so, might be prejudicial to the interests of these participants. 

10:50 AM

The first counsel for petitioners is assaulted with questions on specifics of law & facts. This being a new bench ended up asking some of the questions that were the highlights of yesterday. However, realising that the participants have already been grilled on those aspects, the Bench was quick to adapt & has now adopted a conversant but inquisitive style of dealing with the counsels, on issues on which the petitioners have been hesitant to venture into during their oral submissions.

11:00 AM

The second counsel from NLIU has been more accomodating in the questions posed to her. She also seems to have learned the lesson from her co-counsel by keeping time a priority and not wasting much time on any one issue.

11:15 AM

The luck seems to have run over for her as the Judges are now not letting her move forward with submissions. She's been hounded with questions from all three Judges and on all aspects in the last 15 minutes. However, her confident demeanour and patience in hearing out & answering humbly might earn her points and respect from the Judges.

11:25 AM

The Submissions by NLIU have come to an end and now SLS Noida has sent their first counsel to advance their arguments.

11:30 AM

A poor start for SLS Noida as a novel argument put forth by them rejected at the outset. To quote the Judge, 'A thorough misapplication of substantial question of law by you counsel!'. The rounds are heating up & the counsel needs to be commended for holding his own in the face of heavy criticism from the Bench.

11:40 AM

The Counsel is being bludgeoned by the Bench with questions interspersed with facts of the case & the laws applicable in the case.

11:47 AM

The second counsel for SLS Noida takes the podium & humbly requests the Bench if he could loosen his tie. Though the request was denied but starting on a humourous note might lighten the atmosphere in the Court which ultimately might prove beneficial for him over the course of arguments.

11:52 AM

The second speaker is more assertive, stumbles less and seems to have learned his lessons from the mistakes of his co-counsel. Something seen during the NLIU submissions as well.

12:00 PM

To just give a taster of the kind of grilling being faced by the Counsel, we bring you this. The Counsel cites a 2011 case in order to advance an argument with the Judge asking as to which Court does the case belong to. He replies by stating that the case belongs to a UK Court to which the Judge again specifically asks for the Court. This pressure makes the Counsel to state that it's a House of Lords Judgment. The bemused Judge quips, "House of Lords in 2011!". 

12:10 PM (Rebuttals begin)

The counsel from SLS speeds up towards the end in order to cover all his issues to which the Judge promptly asks him to slow down. The rebuttals begin with NLIU's speaker taking the podium and the Judge remarking, "The rebuttals are good only if short and sweet".

The Bench keeps a firm grip on the statements made in rebuttals with no new arguments being allowed. The counsels are on a very tight leash. Wrapped under 2 minutes, the Judge was heard saying 'Next' every few seconds.

12:14 PM

The first rebuttal by SLS is met with the remark 'Nonsense' by the Bench. All hell broke loose for a few seconds. The Counsel trying his best to get back in the game.

This seems to have succeeded with the Judge having asked the Court Clerk to be given a particular authority. The rebuttals are over from the side of SLS too and the Judge pondered over the last rebuttal for some time. This just might be the silver lining which SLS is desperately hoping for.

12: 20 PM

The First Semi-Final has come to an end with this. The next Semi-Final clash of NALSAR v JGLS will start in about 20 minutes from now.

Second Semi-Final

12:50 PM 

In the words of the Bench, 'It's an all-women Bar'. Two member teams from both NALSAR & JGLS are battling it out in the second semi-final of the 1st NLUO Maritime Law Moot Court Competition, 2014. NALSAR has begun its contentions and in an all too familiar note for this competition, have had to answer queries right at the outset which are as basic as whether all High Courts have original jurisdiction or not. Her perplexed answer to this one was not satisfactory.

1:10 PM

The speaker from NALSAR kas been arguing in a consistent pace peppering her arguments with authorities in regular intervals. The Bench, kept listening for a good deal of time seemingly satisfied with the flow but during the end of her submissions, the intensity of queries multiplied exponentially.

1:20 PM

The second speaker from NALSAR has been facing a tough time from the moment she took over the podium from her co-counsel. However, this hasn't deterred her and she's giving her level best to answer the queries posed to her.

1:35 PM

The heat of the Semis is on display in the Courtroom as the second speaker is being made to answer on the basics of Contract Law, Constitutional Law & Maritime Law. The Bench wants to ensure that only the best & deserving team moves forward to the Finals.

1:42 PM (Submissions from the Respondents)

The first speaker from JGLS is calm and composed and speaks with a pleasant demeanour. However, in trying to successfully put forth her submission explaining the nexus between the facts of the case and a 2013 SC jugement, the judges ask her if she could speak for a minute without using the phrase 'due to the fact' which leaves her flustered. She takes time to recover.

1:55 PM

The speaker fumbles a bit and ends up citing an Article of the Constitution as 'Section'. This instantly attracts a quip from the Judge who asks the difference between an article & a section. The counsel is at a loss of words.

2:05 PM

The seond speaker made a good start but was asked rightaway as to whether she knew who is the regulator of insurance companies and she couldn't answer satisfactorily. The Bench has been stressing from the beginning that basic knowledge of the law even if not related to the moot proposition is important for the counsel to prove a case impeccably.

2:15 PM

As for the speaker, the recovery was good as she was able to relay facts of the cases cited by her which left the Judges impressed. However, this joy was short-lived as JGLS tried to use a concept uttered by the Judge agaisnt NALSAR but not present in their written submissions. To this, the Bench wasted no time in inquiring as to whether this submission was being made on their opinion and JGLS accepted that they had improvised on the spot. Judges pointed out that they might have been wrong.

2:20 PM

The onslaught of the Judges was not to end anytime soon. The counsel directed the Judges to a particular citation & the Judges remarked on the authority of the participants to 'direct' the Judges. Prompt apologies were delivered and the importance of Courtroom decorum was emphasized once more. 

2:25 PM

The rebuttals were fiery from the side NALSAR to say the least. She begun by remarking that arguments by JGLS were mere fiction & not based on facts. The Bench was quick to respond by asking her to stick to her arguments and not let loose statements waste her time.

JGLS kept it lucid and to the point during sur-rebuttals. They were finished in about a minute's time with having delivered their best.

NALSAR & NLIU have made it to the Finals of the 1st NLUO- Maritime Law Moot Court Competition, 2014



3:45 PM

NALSAR opens up the Finals with the first speaker putting up a confident start. However, it takes the Judges only ten seconds to open up the floodgates of questions thereby impeding her progress. Kudos to the speaker for successfully regaining the trust of the Bench after some uncomfortable questions left her visibly upset. There's been a two-pronged approach employed by the speaker in dealing with the Leviathan that is Jurisdiction. She either goes on full throttle by answering with an air of confidence that's impressive or otherwise, on realising that she might be treading on thin air, does a 'Houdini' by evading the reply through stating that issue will be dealt by her co-counsel. 



Speaker from NALSAR looks on as judges pose questions 

4:15 PM

"Whose public policy?", quip the Judges, as speaker is at pains to put forward her argument that piracy should be viewed from a broader view and an "international plane". Speaker flusters, but seems to be good at recovering lost ground. 

4:20 PM

The applicability of Section 60, Marine Insurance Act is questioned and the 'unlikelihood' of the return of the ship remains the heart of the matter at the moment. Speaker is navigating well, but seems to be heading into troubled waters as the questions are piling on. 

4:50 PM

NLIU Bhopal lead their arguments and the judges are letting the speakers control proceedings at their own pace. Speakers seem comfortable and are keeping up with the running down clock. 

4:55 PM

Judges corner speakers on one particular submission of argument that momentarily leaves the speaker with little space to move, but speaker manages to hold her ground. Bravado.

All in all, the rounds have come to a conclusion with both the teams giving short & 'to-the-point' rebuttals. There was a marked difference in the attitude of Judges in this round by letting the teams complete their arguments before posing any questions.

Both the teams have showed brilliance in their replies and 'on-the-spur' tactics employed by all four speakers is truly commendable. Whoever ends up winning the competition would have done so by a very small margin.

Results Coming Soon.


The Results

Winner: National Law Institute University (NLIU), Bhopal take 20,000 INR home

Runners up: National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR), Hyderabad take 12,000 INR home

Best Speaker: Akansha Singh from Jindal Global Law School (JGLS), Sonipat takes 5,000 INR home

Best Memorial: National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Kochi take 5,000 INR home

The Organizing Committee congratulates the participants on their brilliant performance!! 

Further updates coming soon, till then, stay tuned. For all the participants out there, may the force be with you.


Click to show 17 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.