The Schedule    

EVENT DESCRIPTION

DATE

Inaugural Function and Team Orientation	May 11, 2017
Preliminary Rounds	May 12-13, 2017
First Elimination Round (Quarter Finals)	May 13, 2017
Semi-Final, Grand Finals, Valedictory Ceremony and Moot Socials	May 14, 2017

 

Detailed daily schedule

FRIDAY, 12 MAY, 2017

Time/event/ Venue
7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m./ Breakfast/ Restaurant, Grand Inn
8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m./ Transport/to NLSIU Campus --
9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m./Registration & Submission of Memorials/Moot Court Hall
10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m./Team Orientation/Examination Hall
12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m./Memorial Penalty Appeals/Moot Court Hall
1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m./Lunch/Quadrangle
3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m./Preliminary Rounds I/Court Rooms 1-13
4:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m./Tea/Quadrangle
5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m./Preliminary Rounds II/ ourt Rooms 1-13
7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m./Transport to Hotel/--
8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.//inner/Dining Hall, Grand Inn

 

Saturday, 13 MAY, 2017

Time/event/Venue
7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m./Breakfast/Restaurant, Grand Inn
8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m./Transport/to NLSIU Campus --
10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m./Preliminary Round III/Court Rooms 1-13
12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m./Preliminary Round IV/Court Rooms 1-13
1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m./Lunch/Quadrangle
2:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m./Intractive Session and Announcement of Breaks 1/ 4th Year Class Room
4:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m./Transport to Hotel for Non-Advancing Teams
5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m./Quarter Final Rounds/Specified Court Rooms
7:45 p.m./Announcement of Semi Finalists/Quadrangle
8:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m./Dinner/Dining Hall, Grand Inn

 

Sunday, 14 MAY, 2017

Time/event/Venue
8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m./Breakfast/Restaurant, Grand Inn
9:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m./Judges Briefing for Semi Finals/Plumeria Hall, Taj West End
11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m./Semi Final Rounds/Plumeria Hall, Taj West End
12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m./Judges Briefing for Final Rounds/Restaurant Area, Taj West End
1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m./Lunch and Announcement of Finalists/Tamarind Hall, Taj West End
2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m./Problem Discussion Session/Tamarind Hall, Taj West End
5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m./Grand Finals/Grand Ball Room, Taj West End
7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m./Valedictory Ceremony/Grand Ball Room, Taj West End
8:00 p.m. onwards/Socials Pre-Function Area,/Grand Ball
Room, The Taj West End Hotel

 

Opening ceremony

 

10:40 AM: The Opening Ceremony has begun and all the teams have assembled for the team briefing. Prakshal Jain, Convenor, MCS addresses the participants and clarifies rules pertaining to the competition. Some procedural clarifications are made regarding rebuttals, time allocation and discussion amongst the team members. The importance of time management is stressed upon. The parameters of scoring are clearly laid down and include response to questioning, time management, identification of issues amongst others. The need for anonymity is also stressed upon and each team is requested to not disclose their institution at any point. It is also clarified that no member of any team competing in the competition is allowed to hear the oral arguments of other teams as long as they are competing. The teams have been requested to stick to the provided schedule so as to ensure that the competition runs on time.

10:50 AM: The teams have been requested to join the Whatsapp group if they haven't already. They have been notified that the Preliminary Room 1 might start half an hour early, around 2:30pm as the competition is running ahead of schedule. The teams have been explained about locating their Courtrooms. They have been told free to contact the extremely helpful volunteers from NLS, about anything and everything should they need any asisstance!

10:53 AM: The teams are being told about tomorrow's interactive session with leading arbitration practitioners, which promises to be extremely helpful for aspiring practitioners.

10:55 AM: The teams have been assured that they will be provided with their scoresheets as and when they don't proceed to further rounds.

10:57 AM: The schedule for Sunday has also been explained. Smiles can be seen across the room,especially at the mention of the party at Taj West End's! The prizes which include the trophies, books from Thompson Reuters, Amazon KIndles, convertible laptops for menbers of the winning team and also an offer of an internship in Singapore have hopefully motivated the teams even more!

11:02 AM: Jeydev and Sarangan from the Tabbing team explain the principle behind the power match-ups and the basis on which grouping of teams has been done. It has been ensured that no two teams will come up against each other twice, shall not argue in front of a particular judge more than once and that each team will argue from each side exactly twice. It is clarifed that the ranking within a particular group are not indicative of their ranking within the group. Similarly, the number of the group does not indicate its ranking vis a vis other groups.

11:08 AM: The floor is now open to doubts from teams. In response to a query, it is clarified that the teams are allowed to argue beyond their submitted memorials. While the judges may question the teams why they chose to raise arguments beyond the written submissions, they will be briefed to consider them regardless.

11:10 AM: Clarification on memo points are also explained. Teams are also told that objective and time deductions shall be taken into account.

11:15 AM: The criteria of breaks is also announed. The tie breaking criteria will be number of wins and losses. For advanced rounds, memorial scores shall not be taken into account. Teams are again requested to ask any and every question or doubt they may have. The importance of absolute transparency has been stressed upon and which is why NLS has ensured that objective deductions of every team and scoresheets with remarks were sent across to them in due time.

11:17 AM: The session has been concluded and teams have been asked to proceed for submission of their memorials.

 

 ______________________________________________________________________________________

Day 1

 

Preliminary Round 1

Court Room 1

Team no. 21 v. Team no. 25

Respondent Speaker 1

03:07 PM: Early into the round, the arbitrators have started questioning the first speaker

03:10 PM: The counsel has now moved on to his first submission.

03:15 PM: When asked a question, the counsel deftly brought in his next submission.

03:17 PM: Having run out of time, the counsel has been asked to quickly wrap it up.

Claimant Speaker 2

03:20 PM: The arbitrators do not seem very convinced with the counsel's reponse after they pointed out that the matter in question is not of substantive law.

03:27 PM: Having deftly answered the arbitrators; questions, the counsel has moved on to his submissions.

03:30 PM: The counsel has spoken for around 5 minutes now with no questions from the bench.

03:33 PM: Time's up but the counsel is permitted to continue.

03:35 PM: The counsel is asked to wrap it up.

Respondent Speaker 1

03:38 PM: The counsel has begun by introducing himself and his co-counsel and laying down the skeleton of his speech.

03:41 PM: Seeming fairly convinced with the counsel's answer, the arbitrators ask him to continue.

03:43 PM: The counsel has now moved on to the crux of his argument.

03:45 PM: The arbitrator has to point out that the counsel misunderstood his co-arbitrator's question.

03:47 PM: The counsel apologises to the bench for a matter relating to the claim.

03:48 PM: The arbitrator asks the counsel if the counsels will be okay with moving on to negotiation and approaching them later.

03:49 PM: The counsel states the facts again for the benefit of the room.

03:51 PM: The arbitrator directs the counsel to the fact sheet and poses a question.

03:53 PM: Time's up but the counsel is now moving on to the second sub-section of the submission.

Respondent Speaker 2

03:54 PM: The counsel mentions that he will deal with the third issue.

03:55 PM: The counsel asks a rhetorical question which the bench finds amusing and starts questioning him on.

03:57 PM: The counsel seems a little flustered and not very convinced with the arguments that he is making.

03:58 PM: The counsel wants to give his remaining time to his co-counsel but is asked by the arbitrator to finish his arguments first. 

04:00 PM: Having not been able to answer the arbitrator's question, the counsel requests to move to his next argument.

04:02 PM: The judges point out the claims made earlier by the claimant and ask the counsel to respond to that.

04:04 PM: Having ran out of time, the counsel is not permitted to move on to his prayers.

Rebuttals: Claimant Speaker 1

04:06 PM: With just a minute allotted to him, the speaker swiftly makes his points of rebuttals.

Rebuttals: Claimant Speaker 2

04:07 PM: The second counsel has less than minute and has to quickly wrap it up.

Rebuttals: Respondent Speaker 1

04:09 PM: The speaker moves on to wrap up his contentions swiftly. Bringing an end to this round.

Court Room 2

Team Code 34 v. Team Code 6

Respondent Speaker 1

 
03:04 PM: The arbitrators ask the participants to briefly state the facts since it is the first round and Team Respondent informally does the same in a minute's time.

03:07 PM: Respondent Speaker 1 has begun, introducing herself and her co- counsl before starting with her arguments.

03:08 PM: Within less than a minute, the arbitrators have begun to question the counsel.

03:09 PM: Unfazed by the arbitrators' questions, the counsel refers the bench to the fact sheet.

03:10 PM: The arbitrators however, are not convinced and continue to question the counsel ceaselessly.

 

Claimant Speaker 1

 
03:18 PM: The opening counsel for the claimant begins by introducing herself and her co- counsel and briefly outlining the issue.

03:19 PM: The arbitrators are nodding along to the counsel's arguments and have no questions so far.

03:20 PM: On being questioned on her authority by the arbitrator, she confidently states it and continues.

03:20 PM:The counsel's period of quiet appears to be over as she is now met by a barrage of questions from the arbitrators.

03:22 PM: One of the arbitrators is questionig the efforts put in by the claimants to resolve the dispute.

03:24 PM: The arbitrators pose a question to the counsel which stumps her and she asks for a moment to answer but it still unable to give a definitive answer.

03:25 PM: The counsel then seeks permission to move onto her next submission, and when granted, moved forward confidently.

03:26 PM: The arbitrators question the priniple being applied by the counsel and ask her to specifiy its source and direct them to it.

03:27 PM: She takes a moment to locate it and then reads it out to the arbitrators so as to explain her point.

03:28 PM: The arbitrators direct a long, multi- layered question at the counsel which she then proceeds to answer.

03:30 PM: The arbitrators are not convinced by the claimant's argument and ask her to give them a different, more convincing line of argument.

03:31 PM: The counsel seeks a minute of extension to complete her point, and this is granted by the arbitrators.

 

Respondent Speaker 1 

 

03:33 PM: Respondent Speaker 1 is questioned by the arbitrators on her new line of argumentation.

03:35 PM: Nonethless she is not worried and explains her stance confidently.

03:38 PM: She is granted an additional minute to complete her point.

03:39 PM: The counsel is questioned once again by the arbitrators but when she begins to answer they interrupt her saying she has not understood the question.
 
Claimant Speaker 1: Rebuttals 

03:40 PM: The counsel for the claimant begins her rebuttals by clearly outlining which of her opponent's points she will be rebutting and concludes quickly.
 
Claimant Speaker 2 

03:43 PM: The second counsel for the claimant begins by clearly laying out her arguments.

03:44 PM: The arbitrators seem to be in agreement with the argument put forth by the counsel and are nodding along and have no questions so far.

03:45 PM: The counsel is now being questuoned by the arbitrators and they are yet to be convinced by her explanation.

03:37 PM: The arbitrators grant the counsel her point, but say that it is not relevant to the case she is trying to make.

03:48 PM: They ask her to restate her case since they heard her argument and rejected it and thus ask her to give them a fresh argument.

03:49 PM: The counsel is asked once again to reformulate her argumentation and restate her case keeping in mind the questions put to her.

03:50 PM: Unable to satisfactorily answer the questions of the arbitrators, the counsel then moves on to her second submission.

03:52 PM: The counsel directs the arbitrators to a specific section of her compendium to back up her submission and reads it out at their request.

03:54 PM: The arbitrators seem more convinced by this submission and have fewer questions.

03:55 PM: However, within a moment they question very fundamental basis of her argument and seem almost amused by her point.

03:56 PM: As she has reached the end of her allocated time, the arbitrators grant the counsel an additional minute in which they continue to question her.

3:57 Even as she comes to the end of her time, the arbitrators continue to appear amused and unconvinced, but then ask her to wrap up.
 
Respondent Speaker 1

 
03:58 PM: The second counsel for the respondent introduces herself and begins confidently.

03:59 PM: She continues to explain, without any questioning and the arbitrators nod in agreement.

04:00 PM: The arbitrators appear a little sceptical at this point and refer the counsel to some material, reading it out to her.

04:02 PM: The arbitrators pose a long- winded question to the counsel, but she answers it calmly through two points.

04:03 PM: The arbittrators are not convinced by the argument of the counsel, and continue to question her on this point.

04:04 PM: To further explain her point, the counsel refers the arbitrators to some material that has been submitted to them.

04:05 PM: The arbitrators ask the counsel to explain the material provided by her and while they appear convinced prima facie, they question her again.

04:09 PM: The counsel constantly refers the arbitrators to the material submitted, and while they do not dismiss it, they are still not convinced.

04:11 PM: The arbitrators seem to agree with the counsel and ask her to wrap up her arguments as she is at the tail end of her time.

04:12 PM: As she concludes, the arbitrators thank her for her arguments and move on to rebuttals.
 
Claimant Speaker 2: Rebuttals 

04:13 PM: The second counsel for the claimant clearly states her points of rebuttal and concluded quickly.
 
Respondent Speaker 2: Rebuttals 

04:14 PM: The second counsel for the respondent confidently answers the points of rebuttals raised and the abritrators ask for time to decide.

 Court Room 3

Team No. 37 v. Team No. 38

Respondent Speaker 1

03:05 PM: The Counsel first outlines the Respondent's arguments.

03:09 PM: The Arbitrators have a sudden barrage of questions regarding the first submission of the Respondents.

03:11 PM: They appear to be satisfied by the answers provided.

03:16 PM: The Counsel proceeds with her arguments, with no questioning by the Arbitrators for nearly 5 minutes.

03:18 PM: A hypothetical question regarding Microsoft is asked by the Arbitrators. The Counsel fumbles while answering it, prompting further questioning.

03:20 PM: An additional 2 minutes are provided to the Counsel to conclude her arguments.

Claimant Speaker 1

03:23 PM: The Counsel starts off by introducing herself and her Co-counsel, before proceeding to outline the Claimant's arguments.

03:24 PM: Within a minute, the Arbitrators are questioning the Counsel's interpretation of a clause. The Counsel deftly answers, but is faced with furthering questing on interpretations of other clauses

03:29 PM: 5 minutes are spent on this line of questioning, and the Counsel is unable to move forward with her arguments.

03:30 PM: The Arbitrators question the bringing of a commercial contract to such a Tribunal.

03:32 PM: Not having wholly convinced the Arbitrators, the Counsel proceeds with her arguments.

03:33 PM: The Arbitrators question the Counsel's use of Public International Law.

03:35 PM: The Counsel provides a source which is not included in their memorial, leading to brief confusion among the Arbitrators.

03:37 PM: 2 additional minutes are provided to the Counsel to wrap up her arguments. Within these 2 minutes, there is more questioning.
 
Claimant Speaker 2

03:41 PM: The Counsel outlines her submissions, before substantianing her first argument.

03:48 PM: A period of 7 minutes passes, with no questioning by the Arbitrators.

03:49 PM: The Arbitrators question the Counsel on time being of the essence.

03:50 PM: A hypothetical is provided to the Counsel by the Arbitrators.

03:54 PM: The Counsel completes her arguments within the given time.
 
Respondent Speaker 2

03:55 PM: The Counsel states the 3 arguments that he will be submitting, before directing the Arbitrators to their memorial for his first argument.

03:58 PM: Mihir Naniwadekar seems fond of hypotheticals and examples, posing yet another one to the Counsel. The Counsel argues that such an example cannot be compared to the argument provided by him.

04:00 PM: Faced with a flurry of questions and examples from the arbitrators, the Counsel is unable to proceed with his arguments.

04:03 PM: The Counsel is unfazed by the many questions posed, and proceeds confidently.

04:04 PM: Extra time is requested by the Counsel, 5 minutes before his existing time has even elapsed.

04:08 PM: The Arbitrators ask the Counsel to assume that if one line of argumentation of theirs is rejected, would they have a principled argument on the same point?

04:09 PM: The Counsel answers and proceeds to his prayer. He is asked a further question, after the conslusion of the prayer.
 

Rebuttals: Claimants

04:15 PM: Counsel 1 provides 2 rebuttals, before yeilding time to her Co-counsel who provides an additonal rebuttal.
 
Rebuttals: Respondents

04:16 PM: The Counsel swiftly provides her rebuttals, and yeilds time to her Co-Counsel who wraps up the rebuttals, thus bringing an end to this round.

Court Room 5

Team No. 29 v. Team No. 31

03:08 PM: Team 31 begins the round as the first speaker.

 

03:09 PM: Sidhanth Ramachandran is quick to question teams on arbitration laws, fora and procedure.

03:15 PM: The Arbitrators are grilling the speaker on the tiniest of details regarding her submissions on both law and fact.

03:20 PM: The Counsel stubbornly sticks to her argument, passionately arguing on behalf of her client, however, the Arbitrators are unimpressed.

03:22 PM: The Counsel requests for two more minutes to complete her argumentation.

03:24 PM: There is a battle of authorities between the bench and the counsel, as is the norm is moot courts. The bench thanks the speaker for her submissions.
 
Claimant Speaker 1 
 
03:26 PM: The Counsel begins with a well known quote on the silence of the unjust, as a taunt to the Respondents, before launching into her legal argumentation.

 

03:29 PM: The Arbitrators question this Counsel as well on the conduct of her client, however, she is quick to point to the Factsheet.

03:31 PM: The bench is equally tough on this counsel, throwing a barrage of questions at her one by one.

03:33 PM: The Arbitrators reject the argument outright, as they believe the facts are spot on in this regard.

03:37 PM: The Counsel moves on, clarifying the position of law clearly on her next point.

03:39 PM: The bench quizzes the Counsel on the facts of the case, and grants her 2 extra minutes in lieu of that.

03:42 PM: The counsel makes a broad sweeping assertion, leaving the Arbitrators flumoxed and suspicious of her argument.

Claimant Speaker 2

03:46 PM: The Counsel is calm and articulate, outlining the relevant facts to her argument.

03:47 PM: The Arbitrator catches her on the usage on terms, which she quickly clarifies.

03:49 PM: The bench and Counsel continue to interrupt each other, while the Counsel attempts to justify the reasonability of her arguments.

03:50 PM: The Arbitrators provide various hypothetical situations to the Counsel, and she stumbles to provide a legal argument in response.

03:53 PM: There are 5 minutes to go, however the Counsel is nowhere close to concluding. This bench (well acquainted with the law and facts) has spared no one!

03:56 PM: While the Counsel argues vociferously, the Co-Counsel seems extremely disillusioned, sitting with her face in her hands. (picture of the same has been taken)

03:58 PM: The Arbitrators ask her to move to the next submission, and extra time is granted to her. The bench also gives her the option of arguing her best point in the next 2 minutes.

03:53 PM: There are 5 minutes to go, however the Counsel is nowhere close to concluding. This bench (well acquainted with the law and facts) has spared no one!

03:56 PM: While the Counsel argues vociferously, the Co-Counsel seems extremely disillusioned, sitting with her face in her hands (picture of the same has been taken)

03:58 PM: The Arbitrators ask her to move to the next submission, and extra time is granted to her. The bench also gives her the option of arguing her best point in the next 2 minutes

04:00 PM: Mr. Tagotra seems unconvinced, corners the Claimant on facts, while Sidhanth Ramachandran gives them another hypothetical about trimming gardens without the owner's consent
 
Respondent Speaker 2 

 
04:03 PM: The Counsel outlines his structure and the issues he will be dealing with.

04:05 Pm: The Arbitrators now begin a comparison, referring to the Claimant's arguments while questioning the speaker. They are satisfied with the Respondent's answer.

04:08 PM: The Arbitrators seem unconvinced as to the timeline and justifications given by the Counsel

04:11 PM:The Arbitrators are extremely well verses with the facts, and the Counsel attempts to make his point through an interpretation of law

04:12 PM: The conduct of the clients seems to be the most frequent point of contention for both teams, and both attempt to make their client seem reasonable.

04:14 PM: The bench grills the speaker on the interpretation of a term and points out a contradiction in their case.

04:17 PM: The Counsel is still attempting to answer the questions, and his time has run out. The bench has concluded merits and is questioning the Counsel on quantum of damages. The Counsel is unable to answer satisfactorily.
 
Rebuttals: Claimant 
 
04:22 PM: Speaker 1 from Team 29 gives clear points of rebuttal to the submissions given by the Respondents.
 
 
Rebuttals: Respondent  
 
04:25 PM: The Speaker responds passionately to the rebuttals, but the bench seems unconvinced

 

______________________________________________________________________________________

Preliminary Round 2

Court Room 5

Team Code (27) v. Team Code (2)

Claimant Speaker 1

5:45 PM The Arbitrators asks the Counsel to first state the law that would be applied, and then state their arguments.

5:46 PM Almost immediately after commensing with her first submission, the Counsel is questioned repeatedly.

5:50 PM The Counsel fumbles on a few questions, but answers other sufficiently, and proceeds with her arguments.

5:54 PM Questions regarding a new judgement which seemingly contradicts the Claimant's case laws are posed by the Arbitrators.

5:55 PM On further lines of persistent questioning, the Arbitrators seemed unconvinced by the Counsel's answers.

5:56 PM After repeated questioning, the Counsel if she could rather move on to her next submission, due to lack of time.

5:59 PM There is much exasperated eyebrow raising by Mr. Tagotra at the Counsel's arguments.

6:03 PM The Counsel is unable to answer a many questions posed by the Tribunal and apologises for their lack of knowledge, and in return receives more questioning.

6:08 PM Overall, it appears that this part of the round has been dominated by questioning, and the Counsel has not been able to adequately elaborate and convince the Tribunal of their arguments. 

Claimant Speaker 2

6:08 PM The Tribunal asks the Counsel to strictly stick to the time provided, as they have been very liberal with the time provided to his Co-counsel.

6:11 PM The Arbitrartors ask why the Counsel is repeating a point made by his Co-counsel and asks him to proceed with a new argument.

6:13 PM The same question which was posed to his Co-counsel, is posed to the Counsel by the Tribunal. He answers it more satisfactorily than his Co-counsel.

6:16 PM Sidhant Ramachandran has a multitude of questions to ask the Counsel, looking more and more confused with each answer.

6:21 PM The Counsel has had a 5 minute respite from any questions, relieved, he proceeds swiftly through his submission.

6:22 PM The Counsel is asked for case laws regarding his last statement, but is unable to provide them. He concludes as such, as his time has elapsed.
 
Respondent Speaker 1

6:24 PM Within the first minute, the questions have begun for the Counsel.

6:26 PM The Counsel respectfully disagrees with the statements made by the Arbitrators and states his reasons as to why.

6:28 PM The Tribunal cites many lines from the case facts, and proceeds to ask several long winding questions to the Counsel.

6:31 PM The Arbitrators seem very puzzled with the Counsel's line of argumentation, not accepting a single answer of his.

6:33 PM "Negotiation is like clapping, and you need two hands to clap" - Siddharth Ramachandran

6:34 PM Running short of time, the Counsel is asked to get along with his arguments.

6:35 PM A hypothetical example is provided to the Counsel by the Tribunal.

6:39 PM The Tribunal asks the Counsel not to go round in circles and to provide concrete evidence and case laws to substantiate his answers.

Respondent Speaker 2

6:43 PM The Tribunal asks whther the Counsel wants to add more to his Co-counsel's arguments, since they took up much of his time with questioning.

6:44 PM The first Speaker continues to speak due to him being unable to fully put forward his submissions in his own time.

6:46 PM There is more questioning by the Arbitrators, and the Co-counsel looks weary and tired at the proceedings.

6:50 PM The Tribunal now also seem tired and bored with the proceedings. Speaker 2 Finally begins with his submissions.

6:54 PM The Counsel seems a little agitated while making his arguments. The Tribunal asks the Counsel to address all the financial heads separately.

6:57 PM The Counsel is asked to answer a fundamental question, but the answer is not to the satisfaction of the Arbitrators.

6:03 PM After a long run of questioning, the Counsel continues with his arguments, but proceeds even after his time has elapsed, without seeking permission from the Tribunal. The Tribunal asks him to do so.

6:08 PM The Counsel is allowed 30 seconds extra, but speaks for 5 minutes. He is asked to integrate the reminder of his argument in his rebuttal

 

Rebuttals: Claimants

06:09 PM: The Counsel swiftly provides her rebuttals.
 
Rebuttals: Respondents

06:10 PM: Due to having spoken for excess time during his arguments, the Counsel is provided only 30 seconds to make his rebuttals, and does so at great speed.

Court Room 11

Team Code (30) v. Team Code (41)

5:30 PM The teams have mutualy agreed upon the division of time and order of speakers.

5:40 PM The first speaker of the respondent side has begun with the issue of jurisdiction. The speaker has already been questioned by the Arbitrators within the first two minutes. The counsel is given half a minute to summarize the arguments.

Claimant Speaker 1

5:50 PM The first speaker of the claimant side has begun by laying down the order of his submissions. The Arbritators ask the speaker to address a particular issue. The speaker is questioned repeatedly and is asked to provide authorities to substantiate his arguments.

5:53 PM The speaker has now been asked to discuss his first issue. He is repeatedly questioned on the basis of the assumptions made by the claimant side which the Arbitator seem to disagree with.

5:58 PM The speaker is now summarising the arguments on these issues.

6:00 PM The speaker has now proceeded to the next issue.The Arbitrators explain to the claimant side how their arguments are like a chain that doesn't end and sk them to identify the fundamental objectives in the problem. The claimant responds with an issue which is then outrightly stated to not be a fundamental breach by the Arbitrators.

Claimant Speaker 2

6:06 PM The second speaker from the claimant side has started with her set of issues.

6:15 PM The Arbitators explain the problem with the division of an issue keeping in mind the nature of the contract and a certain principle. The counsel has now been asked to summarise her arguments on this issue within thirty seconds. She now refers to a certain analogous case which appears to interest the Arbitrators.

6:17 PM The counsel has proceeded to her next issue which she has broken down into two arguments. The counsel is questioned on certain evaluations which she responds to by quoting the facts given in the moot problem.

6:21 PM The counsel is graciously granted two minutes to sum up her arguments but is not allowed to address the last remaning issue.

Respondent Speaker 2

6:22 PM The second speaker from the respondent side has begun with his submissions in a calm and confident manner.

6:25 PM The speaker is questioned by the Arbitrators and while he responds in a confident structured manner, the Arbitrators feel he has made a mistake in his reasoning. He now proceeds to the other limb of the same argument.

6:30 PM Seeing as the speaker has only five minutes left, he wraps up his first argumnent and proceeds with the following ones.

6:35 PM The speaker hsa been graciously granted extra time by the Arbitrators.

6:36 PM The speaker has now been granted one extra minute and is questioned as soon as he starts with the next argument, which was clearly preempted by him.

6:38 PM The speaker has responded to questioning on applicability of a particular doctrine by presenting an authority that he claims is 'on point'.

6:40 PM The speaker appears to be extremely well versed with case laws to support his submissions but the Arbitrators continue relentless questioning in terms of hypotheticals.

Respondent Speaker 1

6:45 PM The first speaker from the respondent side has begun with his three submissions which integrate certain rebuttals to the arguments put forth by claimants.

6:49 PM The speaker has now moved on to his next argument on the behest of the Arbitators. The continuous questioning still does not perturb the calm and confident manner of the speaker.

6:51 PM The speaker now contests the issue of damages and principles behind the same.

6:53 PM The speaker has elapsed his time but has been granted an extra minute to wrap up his argument. 

Rebuttals - Claimant

6:55 PM The speaker raises only one point of rebuttal in his two minutes which were reserved for rebuttals. He uses several facts from the problem to substantiate his claim.

6:58 PM The speaker is questioned by the Arbitrator but replies confidently. The arguments however sound repetitive.

7:03 PM The Arbitrators put forth one final question and grant an extra minute to the speaker which is repiied to by the speaker by quoting several authorites. The speaker however is cut short by the Arbitrator.

Rebuttals - Respondent

7:07 PM The team has waived there one minute which was reserved for rebuttals.

Court Room 12

Team Code (1) v. Team Code (23)

Claimant Speaker 1 

5:48 The first counsel for the claimant introduces himself and his co- counsel and seeks permission from the tribunal to proceed.

5:49 He then proceeds to clearly outline his submissions and receives permission to proceed.

5:50 Thus far, the counsel has spoken uninterrupted, with no questions being posed to him by the arbitrators.

5:51 The tribunal now poses a question to the counsel, and he asnwers it without getting flustered.

5:53 The arbitrator poses a multi- layered question to the counsel, and states his opinion on the case.

5:54 The counsel sticks resolutely to his stance, and chooses to disagree with the tribunal, defending his stance as per the law.

5:56 The arbitrators are grilling the counsel, to the extent they even say that his case falls entirely.

5:57 The counsel states that he is not aware of the authority that the tribunal is referring to and the tribunal thus explains the facts for the same.

5:58 The tribunal and the counsel appear to be at an impasse as they are advocating opposing views and neither of them has convinced the other.

5:59 With time running out, the tribunal grants the counsel permission to proceed to his next submission.

6:00 While the counsel continues with his submission, one of the arbitrators seems largely unconvinced.

6:01 The arbitrator seems exasperated and asks the counsel to proceed to his next submission.

6:02 The arbitrator is not at all convinced by the authority stated by the counsel and dismisses it.

6:03 The counsel appears to unaware of matters relating to almost every question posed to him by the tribunal and repeatedly states his lack of knowledge.
 
Claimant Speaker 2 

6:05 The second speaker for the claimant begins his argumentation by laying out his submissions.

6:06 The tribunal is questioning the counsel on the facts put forth by him but the counsel directs them to the relevant portions of the fact sheet without dificulty.

6:08 The tribunal points out a blatant contradiction in the odd phraseology used by the counsel in explaining his stance.

6:10 The counsel seeks permission to proceed to his next issue and is granted the same by the tribunal, but is questioned almost instantly on his point.

6:11 The arbitrator appears to be fairly in agreement with the points being put forth by the counsel at this point, and is grants the counsel permission to proceed.

6:14 While the frequency of questioning from the tribunal has marginally reduced, they still seek clarification on a number of issues.

6:15 The counsel seeks permission to asnwer the question of the tribunal after putting forth another point and is granted permission for the same.

6:18 The counsel is momentarily flustered by a question posed to him by the bench, and asks if he may proceed to the next matter due to lack of time.

6:20 The arbitrator seems flabbergasted by a point put forth by the counsel, and asks him to explain how he reached that conclusion.

6:21 The counsel's explanation does not convince the tribunal, and they question him again on the point.

6:22 Due to the paucity of time, the arbitrator asks the counsel to proceed to his next argument.

6:23 The arbitrator, agreeing with the primary point of the counsel, asks him to explain why his method stands and is better than that of the opposite party.

6:24 The counsel admits his inability to answer the question posed to him due to the limited scope of their research, and the tribunal moves to the other side.

Respondent Speaker 1 

6:25 The first counsel for side respondent begins by introducing herself and laying down her submissions.

6:26 The tribunal poses a question to the counsel, agrees with the essence of her answer but asks her to explain it more comprehensively stating its relevance.

6:28 The tribunal questions the very basis of their second submission, and asks her to instead deal with her other submission.

6:31 The counsel is being questioned by the arbitrator on the basis of her submission and how she had arrived at it.

6:32 The counsel denies an assertion stated by the tribunal, and is asked by the arbitrator to clarify and explain her reasons for the same.

6:33 The counsel is asked by the arbitrator to tread carefully, and to answer the question instead of repeating herself as she is.

6:34 The tribunal asks the counsel to to state her sources for her arguments, and repeatedly asks her what authority her arguments are based on.

6:37 While the arbitrators do not dimisss the submissions of the counsel outright, they once again ask her to explain.

6:40 The tribunal lays out the chain of events and asks the counsel to explain the behaviour of her party in light of the same.

6:41 The counsel sticks to her stance, but the tribunal then states that that implies that they had breached their contractual obligation.

6:42 The counsel now attempts to clear her stance, denying the assertion of the tribunal.

6:43 The arbitrators point out a contradiction in the arguments put forth by the counsel, wherein she then seeks permission to move to her next submission

6:45 The tribunal questions the counsel on her understanding of a fundamental issue in the case, and asks her for the basis for this understanding.

6:47 The tribunal dismisses the argument of the counsel entirely, and asks her if she is even sure of what she is saying.

6:48 The counsel seeks permission to move on to her next submission as the tribunal had dismissed her first one, and is granted permission for the same.

6:49 The tribunal laughs out loud at a point made by the counsel, and says that she is "digging her own grave"

6:51 The arbitrators question the counsel repeatedly on a single point, but say that she is not understanding their question.

6:53 The tribunal has decided to disgregard timekeeping entirely, as the counsel has overshot her time by a large amount but they are still questioning her.

6:54 The arbitrator tells the counsel directly that her explanation did not make any sense.

6:56 The timekeeper notifies the tribunal that time that has been overshot, and the tribunal takes note of the same, asking her to quickly explain her next point.
 
Respondent Speaker 2 

6:57 The second counsel for the respondent begins by greeting the tribunal and introducing herself.

6:58 Within a minute, the counsel is questioned by the the tribunal.

7:00 The tribunal states that everyone across the board is in agreement with her point, but she is failing to explain how it said situation came about.

7:02 The counsel agrees to an assertion made by the tribunal, but then denies it anyway, causing the tribunal to point out the blatant contradiction.

7:03 On being questioned by the tribunal on a fact- based issue, the counsel refers the tribunal to the fact sheet to explain her stance.

7:05 The arbitrators question the relevance of the argument being put forth by the counsel.

7:07 Although the counsel is trying to explain her stance, the tribunals are unconvinced and explain why they do not agree with her.

7:09 The arbitrator asks for an alternate line of argumentation on this point as he is not convinced.

7:10 The counsels states that she does not have any other line of argumentation so the tribunal asks her to move to her next point.

7:10 The tribunal calls out the counsel on her point and she realises her error and proceeds to restate her point.

7:12 The tribunal cuts off the counsel on her explanation, moving on to rebuttals.
 
Claimant Speaker 1 Rebuttals 

7:13 The first counsel for the claimant states that he has one primary point of reubuttal, and makes it without any questioning.

7:14 However, on his second point he is questioned by the tribunal, but is cut off by the arbitrator before he can explain.
 
Claimant Speaker 2 Rebuttals 

7:15 The tribunal agrees to the first point of rebuttal raised by the second counsel for the claimant.

7:15 Sticking to the time limit strictly, the tribunal agrees to the second point as well but does not allow the counsel to proceed firther.
 
Respondent Speaker 1 Rebuttals 

7:16 The first counsel for the repondent states her rebuttals without any contention from the bench.
 
Respondent Speaker 2 Rebuttals 

7:15 The second counsel for the respondent puts forth two points of rebuttal and is not questioned by the tribunal on on them.

Court Room 13

Team Code (18) v. Team Code (9)

Respondent Speaker 1

5:37 PM The counsel begins with establishing jurisdiction.

5:39 PM The counsel is asked his first question which he confidently answers.

5:43 PM With no questions asked, the counsel is focusing on establishing the contentions and is now moving on to the facts of the case.

5:46 PM With 5 minutes left, the respondent has now moved on to his second issue.

5:50 PM The counsel is answering the questions with dexterity in a round which seems to be progressing very smoothly till now.

5:52 PM Having run out of time, the counsel is granted another 2 minutes to make his case.

5:55 PM Since the counsel's arguments are very relevant, he is allowed to exceed his time extension.

Claimant Speaker 1

5:57 PM The claimant begins with brief introductions and delves straight into the first issue.

5:59 PM Having answered her first question, she continues discussing the issue.

6:02 PM With no other questions asked so far, the counsel is sailing through her submissions.

6:04 PM The counsel has answered the questions defty and is keen on getting through the submissions as swiftly as she can.

6:07 PM The counsel has asked if she can get into rebuttals now, but the respondents would rather all the issues are dealt with first. 

 

Claimant Speaker 2

6:09 PM Stating that he will deal with issues 3 and 4, the counsel has delved straight into them.

6:11 PM Stating the relevant provisions, he is adeptly establishing his case.

6:13 PM The arbitrators bring up a question with relation to the facts and the counsel handles it well.

6:16 PM The arbitrator ask a very fundamental question in relation to the parties; hesitating a little, he proceeds to answer it.

6:18 PM In relation to the counsel's claim, the arbitrator tells him not to count his chicken before the eggs hatch.

6:21 PM The counsel is now dealing with financial technicalities; the arbitrators seem fairly impressed with his expertise and are nodding to what he is saying.

6:23 PM Having run out of time, the counsel is granted another 2 minutes to make the prayer.

Respondent Speaker 2

6:24 PM Moving to the third issue, the counsel mentions that he has three arguments. He swiftly moves to them.

6:27 PM 4 minutes in, no questions for the counsel.

6:29 PM The counsel handled the question posed to him confidently and goes on to cite precedents.

6:33:00 PM He has now moved on to his third argument.

6:35 PM Stating another precedent, the counsel is relating it to the issue at hand.

6:37 PM He is granted another 2 minutes to summarize his arguments and give concluding remarks.

Rebuttal: Claimant Speaker 1

6:38 PM Listing the division of time and issues between her and her co-counsel, the counsel has wasted no time and has begun right away.

6:39 PM Having run out of the minute allotted to her, she is granted another 30 seconds.

Rebuttal: Claimant Speaker 2

6:40 PM The counsel takes from where his co-counsel left off. He quickly rebuts the rest of the issues.

Rebuttal: Respondent Speaker 1

6:41 PM The counsel delves straight in and quickly makes rebuttals.

Rebuttal: Respondent Speaker 2

6:43 PM: The final speaker confortably concludes rebuttals in the allocated time.

 

This brings us to a close for Day One of NLSTIAM. See you all tomorrow! 

 

 

DAY 2: SATURDAY, MAY 13, 2017

Welcome back to the NLSTIAM Blog. On Day Two, we will have two more preliminary rounds, followed by breaks and then quarterfinals. Let's get started!

---------------------------------------

PRELIMINARY ROUND 3

COURTROOM 13

Team Code 6 v. Team Code 37

Arbitrators: Chanakya Dwivedi (CD) and Natalia S.(NS)

Claimant Speaker 1

10:15 After speaking for a long time, counsel is faced with her first question, which she asnwers to the satisfaction of the Arbitrator CD. 

10:18 The counsel continues her submissions, largely unquestioned by the tribunal.

10:21 The tribunal poses a long- winded question to the counsel, but she answers it confidently, referring the tribunal to their compendium.

10:22 Since the tribunal has no further questions, the counsel concludes her submissions.

Claimant Speaker 2

10:22 The second counsel for the claimant begins her submissions confidently, greeting the tribunal and laying our her arguments.

10:23 The counsel is asked to state the jurisdiction of her source, by Arbitrator NS and does so confidently.

10:27 Since the tribunal has no further questions on her first submission, the counsel moves on to her second submission.

10:28 The tribunal does not appear to have many questions, as they do not interrupt the counsel and listen to her in silence.

10:29 Arbitrator CD asks the counsel a question, stating that he had posed this same question to her co- counsel but was yet to be convinced.

10:30 The counsel answers the question, which seemingly satisfies Arbitrator CD as he nods and grants her permission to proceed to her next submission.

10:33 Undisrupted, the counsel moves on to her next submission confidently.

10:34 Arbitrator NS poses a question to the counsel, is not convinced by her reply and asks a follow up question.

10:38 Since the tribunal has not questioned her, the counsel moves on to her last submission.

Respondent Speaker 1

10:40 The first counsel for the respondent introduces herself and lays down how she and her co- counsel will be allocating their time.

10:43 The counsel is questioned by Arbitrator NS, but is unfazed and answers her question at length.

10:43 Arbitrator NS is still not convinced and continues to question her.

10:45 Arbitrator NS is now grilling the counsel, and she thanks the arbitrator for her question, buying herself some time to answer her question.

10:48 The counsel now moves on to her next submission, as she is not asked any further questions.

10:50 Both Arbitrator CD and NS are now questioning the counsel on her point.

10:52 The counsel is questioned by the tribunal once again and she says that the question posed to her would be answered by her co- counsel in her submissions.

10:55 The counsel asks if she may move on to her next submission as she is running out of time, the tribunal tells her that she still has two minutes left.

10:57 The counsel completes her submissions, and the tribunal nods and thanks her before moving on to the second counsel for the respondent.

Respondent Speaker 2

10:58 The second counsel for the respondent begins her submissions, but is asked by Arbitrator CD to use the microphone as she is inaudible.

10:59 Within a minute, the counsel is questioned by Arbitrator NS, but she answers her confidently, unfazed by the arbitrator's question.

11:02 The counsel moves on to her next submission but is quickly questioned by Arbitrator NS.

11:04 Arbitrator NS is still not convinced by the counsel, and questions her yet again on the same issue.

11:08 The tribunal has no questions for the counsel at this point and she continues with her submissions uninterrupted.

11:10 Arbitrator NS asks the counsel to repond to the claim made by side claimant.

11:11 Arbitrator NS is still not satisfied, and questions the counsel yet again, to which the counsel seeks a clarification and then proceeds to answer.

Claimant Speaker 1

Rebuttals

11:13 The counsel quickly states her rebuttals and then turns to her co- counsel.

Claimant Speaker 2

Rebuttals

11:14 The secind counsel for the claimant also clears states her points of rebuttal and explains them comprehensively.

11:14 However, Arbitrator CD has a question on her rebuttals which her co counsel answers.

Respondent Speaker 1

Rebuttals

11:16 The counsel clearly states her points of rebuttal and proceeds to expain them in detail.

Respondent Speaker 2

Rebuttals

11:17 The counsels states her points of rebuttal and concludes quickly.

 

COURTROOM 4

Team No. 49 v Team No. 5

Arbitrators: Mr. Arunava Mukherjee (Mr. M) Mr. Sapan Parekh (Mr. P)

Respondent Speaker 1

10:12 AM The counsel began by laying down a framework of how he was going to proceed. Mr. M asks him not to waste too much time and begin with his arguments.

10:15 AM Told he is understandably mixing up his issues, he is asked to avoid doing so.

10:17 AM When asked a challenging question on a pertinent issue, the counsel keeps his cool and answers it confidently.

10:20 AM The counsel is standing his ground and answering the barrage of questions very deftly.

10:24 AM The counsel is told by Mr. M not to waste time if he does not know the authority he is citing.

10:25 AM Mr. P questions the counsel on a precedent, and doesn't seem very convinced with the counsel's response.

10:29 AM Mr. M raises a point on which the counsel stands corrected and asks him to read from the fact sheet.

10:32 AM Owing to the paucity of time, the counsel is asked by the tribunal to drop the point he is making right now and move to his next submission.

10:34 AM The counsel is cut off, bringing an end to his allotted time.

Claimant Speaker 1

10:35 AM Wasting no time, the counsel begins.

10:36 AM Mr. M asks her to not make submissions in the air and cite relevant authorities.

10:41 AM The counsel is asked not to mislead the tribunal if she is not sure of her authorities.

10:43 AM She is asked to move to the substantive part of her arguments.

10:44 AM She is unfazed by the line of questioning she is subjected to and proceeds in a collected manner.

10:44 AM She is asked to move to rebuttals.

10:46 AM Small confusion about the clause she is referring to right now. She is asked to repeat herself.

10:48 AM Mr. M cuts her off, assuming she is done making her submissions. The counsel respectfully tells the arbitrator she still has a part of her argument left.

10:52 AM The counsel clarifies when asked why she said she and her co-counsel have divided issues when it seems like she is making all the arguments.

Claimant Speaker 2

10:54 AM The counsel has started by mentioning the quantum of compensation owed to their side by the respondents.

10:55 AM Barely a minute in, the questioning has started.

10:56 AM When asked to cite authorities, the counsel is a little flummoxed.

10:57 AM Unable to recall any such authority, she is asked to move on.

10:57 AM She is corrected by the arbitrator Mr. M on how to cite authorities from a book she has referred to.

10:58 AM The counsel is a little flustered but she persists.

11:00 AM The arbitrator reads out a clarification to her since she does not have it.

11:02 AM Importance of citing authorities is stressed upon again.

11:05 AM The arbitrator Mr. M corrects the counsel on a very basic issue of contract law.

11:07 AM The counsel is put in a spot again and needs a minute to collect her thoughts.

11:08 AM Recovering from that, the counsel continues with her submissions.

11:10 AM Time's up but the tribunal have a few questions.

Respondent Speaker 2

11:11 AM The counsel starts off confidently.

11:12 AM The other claimants are asked not to cross-talk when the counsel is speaking.

11:12 AM The counsel is asked not to "assist the tribunal" and address the issues he has to.

11:15 AM The counsel is asked to think what the special circumstances raised by the claimants side are which they are expected to defeat to win this competition.

11:18 AM The counsel is reminded he has time and to address the issues calmly.

11:22 AM The counsel is asked to approach the tribunal and point out what section of the compendium he is referring to.

11:24 AM The tribunal asks the respondents why they haven't prepared on a particular matter.

11:25 AM Hurriedly, the counsel seeks to respond to the questions asked by the tribunal.

11:29 AM The counsel is interrupted to be asked if he can cite an authority for his claim.

11:30 AM The counsel is given "10 seconds" to conclude.

Rebuttals: Respondent Speaker 1

11:32 AM Both the teams are lightly reprimanded for not deciding their speaking order before the round.

11:33 AM Told that he is out of time, the counsel is asked to quickly wrap it up.

Rebuttals: Claimant Speaker 1

11:34 AM The counsel delves right in, considering how limited her time is.

11:36 AM Mentions the reason for her brevity.

Rebuttals: Claimant Speaker 2

11:36 AM The counsel deals with the quantum owed to them.

Rebuttals: Respondent Speaker 2

11:37 AM States that it is an over-compensatory claim and seeks to dismiss the claimant's claims.

 

COURTROOM 10

Team 38 v Team 33

Arbitrators: Ms. Anupama Kumar and Mr. Rudrajit Ghosh

Respondent Speaker 1

10:40 The Respondent begins with their first speaker. She outlines her issues and launches right into her legal argumentation

10:42 She is questioned almost immediately, and clarifies the position of law succinctly

10:44 She is speeding through, and the bench is unconvinced. The Arbitrators ask her to move on to her next issue

10:45 Rudrajit Ghosh questions her on her submissions on the court's role

10:47 Anupama Kumar now catches her on the facts of the case, and she is forced to draw a distinction

10:49 The Arbitrators ask the Counsel to move directly to a particular argument, even though she has other submissions remaining

10:50 Anupama Kumar and Rudrajit Ghosh both question her on facts, and are not satisfied with her usage of facts and defense of her client's conduct

Respondent Speaker 2

10:53 The next speaker begins with her submissions on merits 

10:55 She is extremely clear on law and principle, and draws a clear distinction between two applicable doctrines

10:57 She is quizzed on the facts of a case, and then Anupama Kumar further questions her on a specific position of law

10:58 She is given 30 seconds extra to conclude her argument on a specific point of law, and cut off almost immediately. These judges are extremely on point with both time and law!

Claimant Speaker 1

10:59 The first Speaker begins by pointing out the wrongful conduct of the Respondents, and goes on to outline his issues

11:00 The Speaker is extremely calm and collected, and Rudrajit Ghosh questions them on the sources of their submissions

11:02 The Counsel repeatedly refers the Bench's attention to the compendium, and Anupama Kumar is quick to catch them on the law

11:04 The Counsel is smoothly answering the questions, and is successfully able to move on to his second issue

11:05 He outlines the obligations of the Respondents, and submits that they have failed to meet it

11:07 The Arbitrators point out that the Counsel has 5 minutes left, and that he should move on to his next argument

11:08 Rudrajit Ghosh smiles and is pleased at their use of the facts, however, Anupama Kumar catches them on an alternative set of facts

11:10 The Counsel uses a case with a similar set of facts in order to prove his point, however, the bench is able to see a distinction

11:12 He finishes exactly on time, and the bench allows the next Speaker an extra 30 seconds

Claimant Speaker 2

11:13 The Counsel begins by pointing out the importance of his client, and then launches into his first issue

11:14 Anupama Kumar is quick to give him a hypothetical, which he smoothly clarifies by quoting a particular clause

11:15 Rudrajit Ghosh points out the conduct of their client, and asks them to directly answer the question

11:17 The Arbitrators are pleased with his answer, and he moves on to his second submission 

11:18 He moves directly to his last issue, and is extremely well placed in terms of time

11:20 The bench asks him to prove his point on facts, and he clarifies his point

11:21 Rudrajit Ghosh clearly states that he has a problem with their argument, and asks them to provide authority on a specific point of law, which he does

11:22 Anupama Kumar reminds him that he has 4 minutes left, and that he should proceed to his next argument

11:23 The Counsel points out the extremely unreasonable nature of the Respondents' conduct

11:25 The Counsel makes a slight error in terminology, and both the bench and the counsel share a smile

11:26 Anupama Kumar, prompt as always, points out he has 30 seconds left, and he concludes

Respondent Speaker 2

11:27 She begins, and Anupama Kumar asks her to proceed to a specific argument

11:28 Rudrajit Ghosh points out that the standard used by the Counsel is not applicable

11:29 The bench throws a barrage of questions at the Counsel, and she calmly clarifies her submission, which is again countered by a hypothetical from Anupama Kumar

11:30 Rudrajit Ghosh points out that the Claimants had presented authority to support their positions, and asks the Counsel to address that

11:31 The bench seems unconvinced, and clearly state that they disagree with the Counsel

11:32 The Counsel gives a detailed answer, and then is allowed to proceed to the next issue

11:34 The bench is once again pressing her on the interpretation of a term

11:35 Anupama Kumar reminds her that she has 4 minutes left, and requires her to move on to the next argument

11:36 Rudrajit Ghosh points out the problematic conduct of the Counsel's client, and does not seem convinced by her answer 

11:38 The Counsel is given 30 seconds to sum up her argumentation

Claimant Rebuttals

11:39 The second Counsel makes four clear points of rebuttal, supported by relevant case law

Respondent Rebuttals

11:41 The second Counsel makes a quick rebuttals on the points presented by the Claimants, and also makes a new point

 

COURTROOM 8

Team No. 15 v. Team No. 29 

Arbitrators: Radhika Kapoor George Pothan

Respondent Speaker 1

10:15 AM "He who does not understand your silence, does not understand your words." With this, the Counsel begins her round.

10:20 AM Almost immediately after beginning her first submission, the Counsel faced a multitude of questions. There is much back and forth between the Tribunal and the Counsel.

10:25 AM The Tribunal poses a long and winding question to the Counsel, which she answers quickly and confidently. The Arbitrator is not convinced however, and presses her further.

10:27 AM 2 additional minutesare granted to the Counsel to conclude her submissions. The Counsel however takes 5 minutes extra to wrap up her arguments.

Claimant Speaker 1

10:32 AM The Counsel begins his speech very animatedly, with multifarious hand guestures.

10:37 AM The Tribunal asks the Counsel for an authority to support his submission, The Counsel answers, but the Tribunal is not satisfied, replying that such an authority is not related to the submission.

10:42 AM Several more questions are posed to the Counsel, not all of which he is able to answer adequately. He is requested to move on to his next submission.

10:46 AM The Counsel seems utterly flummoxed on a question posed, and has to refer to his memorial. The timer goes off and he is luckily or unluckily saved from answering.

Claimant Speaker 2

10:49 AM The Tribunal has a problem with the Counsel's phrasing of the issues, and asks her to rectify the same.

10:57 AM Before even commencing with her submissions, the Counsel faced numerous questions, which last for nearly 7 minutes.

10:58 AM The Counsel cites a case law which has no bearing on her argument. The Tribunal is not pleased.

10:59 AM The Arbitrators repeat the Counsel's argument back to her, to show her the fallacies in it.

11:02 AM The Counsel does not seem to understand the Arbitrator Radhika Kapoor's question, and is beating around the bush. She appears to be exasperated and requests the Counsel to address the question head on.

Respondent Speaker 2

11:05 AM The Counsel remarks that the Claimants have failed to live up to their name of "Best".

11:07 AM The Tribunal seems unsatisfied with the Counsel's first submission, and press her repeatedly.

11:09 AM The Counsel is accused by the Arbitrators of holding themselves and the Claimants to different standards.

11:11 AM A minute is taken by the Counsel to refer to her memorial to answer the questions posed to her by the Tribunal. The Arbitrators continue to press her further.

11:16 AM The Arbitrators ask the Counsel to refer to the case facts and her memorial, and clarify her arguments in light of these statements.

11:17 AM The Counsel has no answers and requests to be able to move on to her next submission.

11:21 AM Very briefly, the Counsel is asked to clarify her stance, before concluding.

Rebuttals: Claimants

11:24 AM Even within his rebuttals, the Tribunal has questions for the Counsel.

Rebuttals: Respondents

11:26 AM The Respondent as well faces questions with her rebuttals. She wraps up her rebuttals quickly after answering the questions.

11:29 AM The Co-Counsel also has a point of rebuttal to make, and with this, the round concludes.

 

COURTROOM 9

Arbitrators: Mr. Rohan Tigadi and Ms. Aastha Dua

Respondent Speaker 1

10:05 AM The first speaker has commenced in a calm and confident manner.

10:18 AM The first speaker having satisfactorily responded to the questioning from the Arbitrators by utilizing the fact sheet and preemting authorities that could be used from the claimnat side.

Claimant Speaker 1

10:20 AM The first speaker from the claimant side also appears to be well versed with his submissions as he proceeds with them without glancing at his notes. The counsel addresses questions from the Arbitrators in a calm and confident manner.

10:25 AM The first speaker having satisfactorily completed his first submission, has now proceeded to his second submission.

10:26 AM The cousel is asked to show where the case he is referring to is mentioned in his written submissions or compedium.

10:28 AM The counsel answers questions posed by the Arbitrators is answered while citing additional authorities.

10:30 AM The counsel has now begun with his submission on merits. He begins by laying out the three sub-issues within this submission and then proceeds with backing his propositions by utilizing the facts provided efficiently.

10:32 AM The Arbitrators appear to be convinced by the arguments of the speaker.

10:33 AM The speaker finishes his arguments just in time, handing over the floor to his co- Arbitrator.

Claimant Speaker 2

10:34 AM The second speaker carries on the arguments from the claimant side in a calm and confident manner. She too does not glance at her notes and the Arbitrators can be seen taking notes intently.

10:36 AM The speaker is asked to provide an authority to support her submission which she answers satisfactorily by explaining the facts of an analogous case.

10:37 AM The speaker has now been granted permission to move to her second submission.

10:39 AM The counsel has now proceeded to her argument pertaining to quantum of damages payable.

10:41 AM The Arbitrators have not yet questioned the counsel on any limb of her arguments regarding damages.

10:47 AM The Arbitrators pose a set of questions regarding a certain claim of compensation and obligations of the responent thereof. Having run out of time, the speaker asks for extra time and is graciously allowed that so as to summarise her arguments.

Responent Speaker 2

10:51 AM The speaker has begun with addressing certain issues raised by the claimant side. He is questioned on his authorities almost immediately. The Arbitrators read out certain facts as provided in the moot problem and question the respondent speaker further.

10:53 AM The speake appears to have misunderstood the question posed by the Arbitators, which is then clarified by them for the benefit of the team. The speaker is asked to explain the nature of the contract before the arising of the dispute.

10:55 AM The speaker's response has not satisfied the Arbitrators who again refer to the facts from the case to clarify the point of contention.

10:58 AM The counsel is now being questione don terminaion of the agreement and the obligations of the respondent thereof.

11:03 AM The Arbitrators continue to pose questions based on the facts provided. The speaker responds to all these queries but it appears as though he is not as thorough in his arguments as the claimant side.

11:04 AM The speaker is granted permission to move on to his next argument. However, he is immediately questioned on his authorities and the nature and mandate of said international authorities.

11:05 AM The speaker is asked to wrap up his arguments seeing as he has only a minute left.

11:07 AM The speaker is granted extra time to wrap up her submissions.

Respondent: Rebuttals

11:09 AM The first speaker has begun with rebuttals in the issue of jurisdiction claiming the claimant have no tenable authority to back up their claims.

11:10 AM As he only has a minute, he only discusses the issue of jurisdiction.

Claimant: Rebuttals

11:11 AM The first speaker begins with the rebuttals and lays down the four heads. He too begins by addressing the question of jurisdiction.

11:13 AM Due to paucity of time the speaker is only able to address two head of rebuttals, bringing this round to a close.

 

-------------------------------

PRELIMINARY ROUND 4

COURTROOM 4 

Team Code 14 v. Team Code 17

Arbitrators: Mr. Arunava Mukherjee (AM) Mr. Sapan Parekh (SP)

Respondent Speaker 1

12:55 The first counsel for the respondent begins by demarkating the time she will be allotting, however is told by Arbitrator AB that that is unnecessary and to proceed.

12:56 Within less than a minute Arbitrator AM has a question for the counsel, and seems impatient to understand her reasoning.

12:57 Arbitrator AM is not yet satisfied by the explanation given by the counsel and queations her rapidly on every statement made by her.

12:58 Arbitrattor AM asks the counsel to state the year of the case cited by her, and is disappointed when she is unable to.

12:59 Arbitrator SP asks the counsel a question, and before the counsel is able to answer, Arbitrator AM adds to the question posed.

1:00 The counsel admits her inability to asnwer the question, at which Arbitrator AM immediately poses another question to her.

1:01 The counsel is faced by a barrage of questions from the tribunal and is largely unable to answer them. The tribunal then asks her to move on.

1:02 The counsel is asked if she has anything else to say, which she answers in the negative, once again stating her inability to answer.

1:03 There is some confusion as the counsel has not fulfilled her minimum applicable time. Post some discussion with the tribunal, she moves onto her second issue.

1:04 Arbitrator SP asks her to proceed by allmeans, sensing that she has not understood the format being followed for the round.

1:05 Arbitrator SP asks the counsel a slew of questions, she takes a moment to gather her thoughts and then proceeds to answer.

1:07 The counsel is now being questioned by Arbitrator AM who disagrees with her explanation and asks her to explain it more comprehensively.

1:08 Unable to reply to the question of Arbitrator AM, the counsel seeks permission to address it in her rebuttals which surprises AM, but he grants her permission for the same.

1:09 She then moves onto another issue, prompting Arbitrator AM to ask her to clearly define the issues she will be addressing as she appears to be confused regarding the same.

1:10 The general trend was that the the counsel was largely unable to answer the questions of the tribunal, and admitted her inability to answer to the tribunal as well.

Claimant Speaker 1

1:11 The first counsel for the respondent begins by defining the time she will be allotting to different issues and is interrupted by Arbitrator AM asking her not to do that and proceed.

1:14 The tribunal has immediately started to question the counsel, but she is unfazed and answers them confidently.

1:14 However, when Arbitrator AM asks her for a specific principle she states that she does not have knowledge of the same.

1:15 The counsel is being questioned by the tribunal on nearly every statement made by her.

1:17 The counsel attempts to move onto her next issue but is stopped by Arbitrator AM who says that he has more questions to ask on the previous issues.

1:18 Inspite of being repeatedly questione by the tribunal, the counsel retains her poise and is not flustered, confidently stating authorities for her case as to asked by the tribunal.

1:20 The counsel wishes to further elaborate on her issue, but Arbitrator AM states that they have understood her point and to proceed to her next submission.

1:22 The tribunal appears to have less questions on this submission, as there are a few moments of silence from the tribunal with no questions.

1:24 Arbitrator AM states that he has one last question, seeming a little exasperated at the counsel. Nonetheless, she answers him enthusiastically.

1:25 The counsel seems keen to explain further, but Arbitrator AM says that the tribunal has understood her point and she need not elaborate further.

Claimant Speaker 2

1:26 The second counsel for the claimant has begun his argument, with no questions from the tribunals so far.

1:28 Arbitrator AM interrupts the counsel, and asks him to state his argument in 4 or 5 points, and seek clarifications if he is unclear on his points.

1:29 The counsel attempts to explain his point, at which Arbitrator AM says he to move onto his next point, and explain on the basis of facts.

1:30 For a change, the tribunal has no questions, as the counsel continues with his arguments.

1:31 Arbitrator AM asks him to specify his arguments in points, hwoever, the counsel states that he feels that it is necessary to first explain comprehensively to lay a base.

1:34 There appears to be lack of consensus between the tribunal and the counsel, as neither party is able to convince the other.

1:34 However, eventually Arbitrator AM agrees with the counsel, and the counsel moves onto a different argument.

1:35 Arbitrator AM seems frustrated with the counsel, and asks him again to just answer the question clearly. 1:36 Arbitrator AM seems amazed that the counsel is not aware of the facts of a case cited by him, but the counsel defends his stand and seeks permission to move on.

1:37 The counsel seeks permission to move onto his next issue, on account of the fact that his time is running out.

1:38 However, Arbitrator AM appears annoyed and says that the counsel has to satisfy him on the current issue before moving on to the next, and not to worry about time.

1:39 Arbitrator AM asks the counsel if he is aware of a particular principle, but when the counsel states that he is not, he asks the counsel to move on to his next issue.

1:41 Realising that he is out of his time, the counsel concludes quickly and the tribunal thanks him for his time.

Respondent Speaker 2

1:42 The second counsel for the reposndent begins with her submissions, but is soon interrupted by the tribunal.

1:44 Arbitrator AM refers her to a specific portion of the fact sheet, on which he disagrees with her intrerpration. He explains his stance using an illustration.

1:46 The counsel claims to have understood the question, but states her inability to answer it, at which Arbitrator AM asks her to move on.

1:47 The counsel appears to be a little flustered by the questioning from the tribunal and has quickened her pace. She is then asked to proceed to her next point.

1:48 Arbitrator SP now has a question for the counsel, stating that her submission seemed unreasonable to her.

1:49 The counsel asnwers his question, but Arbitrator SP is not satisfied with her answer and asks her a number of follow up questions.

1:51 The tribunal asks the counsel to state cases to illustrate her point, but she admits her inability to do the same.

1:52 Experated that the counsel is unable to understand their questions, the tribunal asks her to proceed as per her wishes then.

1:54 The tribunal seems unsatisfied with the authorities put forth by the counsel, and asks her if she can use any principles of international law to substantiate her claim.

1:55 As she states her inability to do so, Arbitrator AM asks her to proceed to her next point.

1:57 The tribunal thanks the counsel for her arguments and asks side claimant to begin with their rebuttals.

Claimant Speaker 1

1:58 The counsel begins her rebuttal, and is granted two minutes for the same.

1:59 The tribunal seems amused at the demand made by the the counsel but has no questions.

2:03 Arbitrator SP asks the counsel if she is changing her position in her reubttals.

Claimant Speaker 2 Rebuttals

2:05 The tribunal questions the counsel on his rebuttal and states that both teams have missed a crucial point.

Respondent Speaker 1 Rebuttals

2:08 The tribunal states that the team which stated that they would answer a question in their rebuttals failed to do so.

 

COURTROOM 8

Team No. 31 v Team No. 7

Arbitrators: Radhika Kapoor (RK) and George Pothan (GP)

Respondent Speaker 1

12:26 PM The counsel begins her time by stating a platitude and the importance of the process they are going through today.

12:27 PM The first question is asked and the counsel responds to it a calm and collected manner.

12:29 PM The arbitrator GP's question puts her in a spot and the counsel takes a minutes to collect her thoughts.

12:33 PM The arbitrators are quizzing the counsel who is asking the questions confidently.

12:34 PM The counsel indulges the hypothetical posed to her by the arbitrator but goes on to make her case.

12:37 PM The tribunal points out that the onus of considering the consquences was on the the counsel's clients.

12:38 PM The tribunal is asking the counsel to address an issue related to silence and asking her to cite an authority.

12:40 PM Time's up but the counsel is granted another 2 minutes.

Claimant Speaker 1

12:44 PM 30 seconds in, the counsel is asked the relevance of the point she is making.

12:46 PM The counsel brings out technicalities in her arguments which were missed by the respondent side.

12:49 PM The counsel thanks the arbitrator for her question and moves on to address her question.

12:50 PM Fairly satisfied, the tribunal asks her to move to the next issue.

12:52 PM Reminding them that the counsel's client is the professional pioneer in the field, the arbitrator RK questions them on their oversight.

12:53 PM Convinced with the counsel's argumentation, the tribunal asks the counsel to move to the next issue.

12:56 PM Citing an authority, the counsel makes a point relevant to her case.

12:58 PM Listing the possible rebuttals the other side can make, the counsel starts rebutting them one by one.

Claimant Speaker 2

1:00 PM After a brief introduction, the counsel moves to issues 3 and 4.

1:03 PM The counsel is asked how they are quantifying their damages.

1:05 PM The counsel is quizzed on when they suspended their performance.

1:06 PM He is reminded by the tribunal what his clients did and to justify that.

1:08 PM The counsel directs the tribunal to the fact sheet and puts forth his arguments relying on it.

1:11 PM The counsel reminds the tribunal the respondent's obligation before moving on to this next issue.

1:13 PM Time is up and the counsel is granted 2 minutes to answer the tribunal's questions and conclude.

Respondent Speaker 2

1:17 PM After a little confusion whether the side should go into rebuttals first, it is decided that the second counsel will deal with issues 3 and 4.

1:21 PM The counsel thanks the tribunal for their question and collects her thoughts before responding to their questions.

1:23 PM The counsel is asked to answer why her clients did not respond to the claimant's client.

1:24 PM The counsel is asked to answer the tribunal's question in a yes or no. Seeking to justify why she answered in a negative, she is cut off.

1:26 PM The counsel is being grilled on her client's actions.

1:29 PM After asserting that the claimant's side has been unprofessional, the tribunal points out that the circumstances indicate that their client has been unprofessional. 

1:30 PM Claiming that the claimant's side unilaterally changed the terms of the contract, the counsel pushes the responsibility on them.

1:33 PM The counsel has run out of time and is asked to conclude in an additional 2 minutes.

Rebuttals: Claimant Speaker 1

1:36 PM Dismissing the respondent's claims, the counsel sails through her rebuttals.

Rebuttals: Respondent Speaker 1

1:38 PM A small confusion ensues what points have to be rebutted by the counsel.

1:39 PM Having sorted that out, the counsel continues.

1:40 PM Time's up and the counsel is asked to conclude. Rebuttals: Respondent Speaker 2

1:41 PM The counsel is asked why she is bringing up a point during rebuttals and didn't raise it earlier.

1:42 PM Time's up. 

 

COURTROOM 7

Team No. 26 v. Team No. 3

Arbitrators: Veena Kamath and Ashutosh Kumar

Respondent Speaker 1

12:55 PM The Counsel starts off by intoroducting himself and his Co-counsel and outlining the Respondent's submissions.

12:56 PM Arbitrator Veena Kamath (henceforth VK) asks the Counsel to state the law which would be applied.

12:58 PM Arbitrator Ashutosh Kumar's (henchforth AK) interpretation of the isssue differs from that of the Counsel.

1:00 PM The Counsel is calm, clear and composed, and hardly ever refers to his notes.

 1:02 PM The Tribunal contends that the meaning of a term used by the Counsel is vague and vacuous, and without meaning. The Counsel clarifies.

1:06 PM There is some back and forth between the Arbitrators and the Counsel, but the Counsel aswers the questions deftly and satisfactorily.

1:08 PM Since the Counsel is short on time, the Tribunal requests the Counsel to address his second submission.

1:11 PM Arbitrator AK asks two pointed questions to the Counsel after the conclusion of his submissions.Follow up questions are asked on these.

1:20 PM There are additional questions on the follow up questions. The Counsels answers them all in a calm and collected manner, adequaetely.

1:21 PM The Tribunal considers one of the arguments of the Counsel to be speculative in nature, and asks him to move on to his next submission.

1:25 PM Seeing as the Counsel is well over his time, the Tribunal states that they understand his point, and take his submission on record, and request him to continue with the next part of his submission.

1:26 PM Arbitrator AK asks a 3 pronged question, and then backtracks, settling on a 2 pronged question.

1:28 PM More than 15 minutes over time, the Counsel finally concludes, and apologises to the Tribunal for taking extra time. The Tribunal has no problems with the same.

Claimant Speaker 1

11:30 PM The Counsel outlines his submissions and states the law which is to be applied. The Tribunal has an issue with the laws being stated, and ask him a pointed question on the difference between two laws.

1:32 PM The Tribunal says that they are less interested in authorities and more interested in the facts, and asks the Counsel to make his arguments in light of the same.

1:37 PM A while has passed since the Counsel has been interrupted with questions by the judges. He hurries on quickly, eager to finish his submissions on time.

1:38 PM Arbitrator AK asks the Counsel to revert to a previous argument and poses a question.

1:41 PM The Tribunal requests the Counsel to move on to his next submission, noting the shortage of time.

1:43 PM The last submission of the Counsel is thought as being a general metter by the Tribunal. The Counsel is asked to elaborate on why he believes it is relevant.

1:48 PM The Counsel councludes with his submissions, reasonably on time.

Claimant Speaker 2

1:50 PM The Tribunal asks under which principle the Counsel is arguing. The Counsel does not seem to understand, and Arbitrator AK explains the principles.

1:52 PM The Tribunal asks the Counsel to differenciate between the Purpose Test and the Nature Test, for the Tribunal's understanding.

1:56 PM The Counsel continues with his arguments, without much questioning.

1:57 PM The financial aspects are asked to be elabored on by the Tribunal.

2:01 PM Arbitrator AK finds it hard to believe certain statements made by the Counsel, in regards to disclosure of information.

2:04 PM Since the Counsel's time is up, the Tribunal asks him to talk about his next submission, and then conclude.

2:08 PM The Counsel concludes without taking too much extra time.

Respondent Speaker 2

2:09 PM Within 30 seconds of the Counsel speaking, the questioning begins.

2:11 PM The Counsel confidently and defly answers the questions, and proceeds with her submissions.

2:14 PM The Tribunal disagrees with the Counsel on one line of argumentation, and the Counsel hurries to clarify. There is much back and forth between Arbitrator AK and the Counsel. 2:20 PM The Tribunal continues to press the Counsel with numerous questions and clarifications. 2:21 PM "What works for the goose works for the gander" - Arbitrator AK on obligations. 2:22 PM A few questions requiring speculation are asked by the Tribunal. The Counsel laughs and states that she would be required to consult her client before answering those. 

2:20 PM The Tribunal continues to press the Counsel with numerous questions and clarifications.

2:21 PM "What works for the goose works for the gander" - Arbitrator AK on obligations.

2:22 PM A few questions requiring speculation are asked by the Tribunal. The Counsel laughs and states that she would be required to consult her client before answering those. 

2:23 PM The Counsel is asked to refer to the facts to answer a question, and takes a minute..

2:24 PM The Tribunal asks the Counsel to integrate some of her arguments into her rebuttal, due to shortage of time.

2:27 PM Arbitrator AK states that they are not confortable with a principle being used, and asks for the Counsel's response to the same. The Counsel stands by her argument and provides case laws to substantiate the same.

 

 

COURTROOM 13

Team Code 38 v. 34

Arbitrators: Mr. Chanakya Dwivedi & Ms. Natalia Szlarb

Respondent: Speaker 1

12:19 PM The first speaker from the respondent side has commenced by introducing herself and her co-counsel and laying out the two arguments she will be dealing with. The Arbitrators pose several questions to the team to which the speaker responds confidently.

12:25 PM The Arbitrators ask the speaker to specify the exact Article of the authority she is referring to. She is also asked to specify the jurisdiction of the case she is citing. She is repeatedly asked to clarify which law is applicable to the given dispute and which interpretation would take precedence.

12:30 PM Madam Arbitrator poses a question regarding the quatum of claim which is answered by the speaker by dividing her response into two parts.

12:33 PM The speaker asks for a minute of extension seeing as her time has elapsed and is graciously granted two minutes to summarise by the Arbitrators.

Claimant: Speaker 1

12:38 PM The speaker begins by introducing herself and her co-counsel and orders her issues as per that laid down by the respondent.

12:39 PM The speaker is questioned on the matter of jurisdiction. After her response, she is also questioned on the matter of a certain article relating to the dispute resolution process between the parties. She politely thanks the tribunal for the question but is not able to answer satisfactorily.

12:42 PM The counsel also refutes a certain case cited by the respondent. She cites her own share of authorites by regularly directing the attention of the Arbitrators to her compedium.

12:44 PM The counsel has now proceeded to her third argument. The Arbitrators repeatedly question her on the obligations and claims made by the claimant. She requests them to repeat the question as she did not quite understand them. The Arbitrators graciously do so but the counsel feels she will not be able to assist them any further in this issue and requests permission to move on to the next issue.

12:48 PM The speaker still faces several questions as she proceeds. She finishes her arguments a minute earlier but on being encouraged by the Arbitrators resumes with her arguments.

Claimant: Speaker 2

12:52 PM The second speaker from the claimant side has begun and also states that he shall follow the order of issues laid down by the respondent side.He also outlines the three arguments pertaining to sum of damages claimed. 12:54 PM Like his co-counsel, the speaker directs the tribunal to his compedium for drawing their attention to certain authorties. 12:57 PM The counsel has not been questioned as much as his co-counsel so far. He proceeds without interruptions to his second issue. 1:03 PM

12:54 PM Like his co-counsel, the speaker directs the tribunal to his compedium for drawing their attention to certain authorties. 

12:57 PM The counsel has not been questioned as much as his co-counsel so far. He proceeds without interruptions to his second issue. 

1:03 PM The counsel is questioned on a certain point of expected profits and is unable to answer it satisfactorily. He requests permission to move on to his next submission because of the paucity of time, despite having about 4 minutes left. The tribunal grants him an additional two minutes.

1:05 PM The counsel has proceeded with his third and final submission. He relies mostly on authorities and feels that they are overwhelming in this area.

Resondent: Speaker 2

1:07 PM Before the speaker starts with her issues, the Arbitrator grants the team the option to have a two minute extension so as to be fair to both teams. The speaker thanks the Arbitrator and begins with her submissions.

1:09 PM The speaker mentions a phrase 'alternative sources' on which she is asked to expand on and is grilled on it thereof.

1:12 PM The Arbitrator asks a pointed hypothetical in light of what the counsel just said, to which her response is winding and uncertain. She then seeks permission to move to the next submission.

1:17 PM The speaker has now moved on to the issue of interest that is recoverable.

Claimant: Rebuttals

1:19 PM The second speaker begins with the rebuttals by claiming firstly, that the respondent's submissions were not backed by authority.

Respondent: Rebuttals

1:21 PM The first speaker proceeds with her share of rebuttals. She is graciously granted thirty seconds to summarise her rebuttals.

1:23 PM The second speaker continues with the rebuttals. She begisn by citing two cases and talks about her ealier submissions.

1:23 PM The second speaker continues with the rebuttals. She begins by citing two cases and talks about her earlier submissions.

 

 

 

 

 

INTERACTIVE SESSION

We now move on to an interactive session with a panel : Mr. Vivekananda N (VN), Ms. Sophie Nappert (SN), Ms. Jennifer Lim (JL) and Mr. Vikas N. M. (VNM) (Moderator).

VNM starts off the discussion by asking why the panel likes arbitration.

VN likes arbitration because of the flexibility, the fact that things are not as set in their ways as court.

SN: Arbitration transcends borders, it is transnational. It ensures peaceful resolution of disbutes. People from different legal backgrounds can go to a tribunal and resolve their disputes. There is harmony in how things are brought together. 

JL highlights the international, borderless aspect. Reflects on the experience in her career. There is no one way to be a good, effective consel. It depends on who is with you, whom you oppose, the entire process is dynamic. It's never the same. 

VNK: Asks about the non-glamorous side of arbitration. 

JL: When there are parties who are not actually interested in solving the problem, who are interested in delays, trying to push everything to later dates, push up costs. Then you have to end up hoping the tribunal 

SN: It's a non-glamorous field of study. There are obviously great interactions, conferences, perspectives. But all the time you spend alone, studying and working, at your computer. It's not exciting, but it is a very big responsibility. 

VN: You get one shot at going through the process. The not-so-attractive prospect is that whereas in court, we have appeals, in arbitration this is often not the case. You aren't often able to challenge an award on substantial grounds. So a lapse even in procedure can prove to be fatal. When you're working in different jursidictions especially, this becomes a problem. 

VNM: When I was a junior lawyer - the volume of documentation is huge. The meaty part might be great, but the sheer amount of work that goes into getting there is challenging. 

VN: Now talks about experience in the field in Singapore. Wherever there is commerce, there are disputes, and therefore there is scope for arbitration. Arbitration is most successful where commerce lies, but there are seats and centers around the world with ecosystems that promote arbitration. Lawyers who practice international arbitration can do it anywhere. Singapore has seen huge growth in commercial arbitration in the last ten years. As an Indian lawyer, one can say one would see equally good options in India. 

VNM: Let's address people who would want to know where to start their career in arbitration.

SN: I would not necessarily reach out to a center. Maybe where commerce is, a state that is party to the NY Convention, and a judiciary that will stay out of proceedings. Any place that has these attributes is a good place to start. Some of the better known hubs are saturated with talent and work - London, for eg. Places like Latin America are growing. So, take risks. Look elsewhere if your home jurisdiction doesn't suit you. 

JL: One should keep an open mind when starting a law career. Many forms of dispute resolution give you skills that can be transferred to arbitration. You needn't start out in arbitration. Keep your eye out for cases that happen in your jursidiction, to see where the market is.

VNM: The disputes team that have Singapore law capabilities are small. Easy to get disillusioned. But work is evolving, now it is possible to work where the clients are. Be a little adventurous. Directs a question to JL about working at a law firm.

JL: Working at a law firm that has a strong arbitration practice allows you to work with some of the greatest arbitration practicioners in the world - this is one of the biggest selling points. You can develop reseach and writing skills. You can benefit from institutional knowledge. That said. you might have to wait your turn depending on seniority in terms of getting to speak. Junior Associates need to grow. Cross-examinations don't immediately come to you. Research, drafting, preparing witnesses will be your main tasks intitially. 

SN: I am a barrister in Canada. Be an advocate, be a counselor at some point in your career, whether it is in a bigger or smaller firm. Learn how to make an argument. Academics are very learned in the law but practicioners know procedure better, they have practical experience. A lot of younger colleagues work at firms, and then join institutions. That's excellent, to have that insider's perspective. It's not something I did when I was practising, but I think that's an opportunity that exists now and you should pursue it. 

VN: All experience practising the law, whether domestically or outside, that will benefit you. Having worked at an arbitral institution, it's very interesting to have that perspective from the inside. Institutions are tasked with making sure arbitrations run according to the rules and what the parties agree upon. The arbitration law part of it usually take a back seat when you practice, since things are more about the situation and not the process. Institutions are a great platform to learn arbitration and how people from different parts of the world approach it. 

JL: From an institutional perspective, you see draft awards, how scrutiny happens. You can see that not everything is of the high quality it should be - that's a tremendous lesson. Arbitrators hire a lot of assistants - you can see the non-glamorous part of the job. We are human, not flawless. 

VNM: Flawless is the first myth that will be dispelled when you go into the field. There's always space to make a difference. Mistakes are made even at the highest levels. He also expands on the impacts of advocacy. You get there sooner or later, but it's good to develope the skills. You can work after gradutation or even start early on as an intern. You don't necessarily have to wait till you're done graduating. 

VNM now moves on to how to get into the field. 

JL: My own experience - went to Columbia. On-campus interviews are conducted by law firms. You go through second and third rounds. This is what happens with law firms in the US - and they don't always even consider LLM students. But talking about making inroads into new markets - like India. Law firms as they set up here will hire locally, and then it's open as to how they recruit. 

VNM: How does one get a foot in the door? Do you have to join where you see yourself working or is it okay to start elsewhere? 

JL: It's definitely okay to start elsewhere. As long as you're developing the sort of experience you need to become a good practicioner, you are in a good spot. Keep an open mind, go to conferences, publish in the area. Make inroads that way. 

VNM directs the same question to Sophie.

SN: There will be a short time when you shadow a barrister, and if they like you, you will be interviewed and offered a place. After that, stay very close to the individual barristers who have practices that you want to emulate. It's a very obsolete way of making your way forward but that's how it is. These days there are networks for arbitration practicioners, for young people. Get involved, get to know those on that level with you. Get involved in new areas - like Artificial Intelligence. Get yourself published. Once you have published - it doesn't have to be complicated, it just has to be interesting. Then, people will remember your name. 

VN: The one thing you want to see in an application is an interest in the topic and engagement with the topic for a reasonable period of time. Don't do int'l arbitration because it sounds good. Do it if you enjoy it. I do, and I want to work with people who also enjoy it. There is no dearth of opportunities to engage. There are many fora for you to do that, and you can always write - people will always read what interests them. Practicioners keep themselves updated. 

VNM: Skill sets, visibility, publications, being at conferences, keeping in touch, showing interest. This is how you establish yourself in the field. Now, let's move to the next level. How does one go about being an arbitrator? 

SN: I can only speak of my own experience. I started off as a counsel and moved on to being an arbitrator. I had to ask myself existential questions. What sort of arbitrator am I, what sort of cases do I say yes to, how do I want to be seen, questions regarding ethics. You have to make a decision. I have a very small team now. There are a lot of things that you take for granted as a counsel so the transition is not at all obvious, it's a challenge. The isolation of being an arbitrator is not easy to deal with. You need to consider how your peers and competitiors view you. You have to think about trust. You have to be mindful, be generous - share ideas, share thoughts, be involved. 

VN: In India the easiest way to become an arbitrator is to become a judge. 

VNM: MIght take a while. <laughter>

VN: Internationally, there is no such bar for younger people. It's about experience. Jennifer would be able to do it, even as a young practicioner. Your peers are people who you will come across, who see you as a counsel and then at some point think of you as an option. An institution is always on the lookout for people of varying different kinds of seniority and expereince. There are institutions that train you.  In a place like India there is a serious dearth to people who are counsels acting as arbitrators. It is slowly changing, and I hope people like you who go out and practice consider your peers in such a capacity. 

VNM: What is it like to be a counsel on an investment treaty arbitration.

JL: The cases I've been on, I usually represent investors so that's my perspective. There is public interest at stake, so it's different from commercial arbitration. The state could be liable. There could be a breach of international law. Investor-state arbitration puts at conflict the private stake of the investor and the public interest. There is a lot of controversy and debate over investor-state arbitration. Watch this space. 

VNM asks for questions from the audience. 

Q: Where would one study arbitration? 

VN: A lot of information on that is available. Masters / specialisation in arbitration in Geneva, Stockholm etc. There are smaller programs, like Singapore's month-long program, the Hague has a three month program. There are events, workshops. conferences. They happen very often, keep an eye out.

SN: In London, Queen Mary runs a very well-known program. Also, Universities that have a good network and that have talent even if they don't have specialised problems. Also - go online. There is a tremendous amount of resources.

JL: NYU has a pretty strong program. Columbia too.

Q: You said investor-state arbitration is a space worth watching. Any other spaces in particular?

VNM: The DIPs being negotiated. Also - third-party funding. These are areas that are rapidly developing. Institutionalisation.

SN: There is a move from other areas of legal practice reaching out to arbitration. International Trusts is one area. I recently co-chaired a ICC committee on this. People have reached out, who don't want to go to many jurisdictions and courts, who want confidentiality, who want their international trust disputes to be dealt with in arbitration. International insolvency is also one more area. If you're looking ot the future, think outside the box. 

VNM: AI in arbitration. Radical today, might be outdated tomorrow. 

Q: Any ways besides competitions such as this to gain arbitration experience while at universities? 

SN: Internships. VNM mentioned interning with the ICC. 

VNM: Yes, internships. 

SN: With an arbitrator, for eg. I get a lot of LLM students etcetera who apply to me with a detailed application. Be ready to do this for free if you can afford it, because that opens up many interesting opportunities that don't have the funding to go with it. Human rights and that sort of thing.

VNM: Tribunal secretatries, is that an option?

SN: Their tasks take up a lot of time, it's a full-time job when you're on a case but a lot of my younger colleagues tell me it's a golden opportunity.

JL: There are writing competitions out there. Sophie has created one of the most prominent essay competitions.

SN: The first winner was an Indian lady, in fact.

VNM: That's all the time we have for now, thank you very much.

Prakshal Jain, Convener, MCS thanks the panel and the attendees. He will now announce breaks. 

BREAKS: (In the order of ranks)

1. Team Code 21

2. Team Code 33

3. Team Code 1

4. Team Code 34

5. Team Code 6 

6. Team Code 5 

7. Team Code 14

8. Team Code 7

 

The teams that broke are: ILS, NALSAR, Nirma, NLIU, NLU-J, NLU-O, Nirma and NUS. 

 

 

-------------------------------

 

QUARTER-FINALS

 

COURTROOM - 13 

Team Code 1 v. Team Code 5 

Arbitrators: Ashutosh Kumar (AK), Sumit Kumar Rai (SKR) and Sulabh Revari (SR)

Respondent Speaker 1

6:01 The first counsel for the respondent has begun his address by clearly outlining the points he shall be making and the time allocated for the same.

6:02 The tribunal seems surprised at the overtly formal language used by the counsel.

6:03 So far, there are no questions from any of the arbitrators and the counsel continues confidently, uninterrupted.

6:05 Arbitrator AK now questions the counsel, however he is unfazed by this question and answers it confidently.

6:06 However, Arbitrator AK is still unconvinced, and asks states a certain sequence of events, asking the counsel if that is what he prefers.

6:07 The counsel answers once again, but he is interrupted by Arbitraor SKR who asks him for any authority on which he is arguing the said point.

6:08 The counsel states his inability to state any authority, and asks if the tribunal is convinced he may move on to his next issue.

6:09 This is met by some laughter from the tribunal who say that they cannot say that they are convinced, but ask him to proceed nonetheless.

6:11 Both Arbitrators AK and SKR are now questioning the counsel on the issue he is arguing.

6:12 The Arbitrator SKR tells the counsel that he in unclear on the argument being put forth by the counsel, and asks him to clarify. 

6:13 The counsel asks the tribunal for a moment's time to get back to them, however, seeing that he is unable to find the relevant material, the tribunal reads it out to him.

6:14 Arbitrator SR asks the counsel to explain a particular issue which throws him off for a moment, then he recovers and says that it will be handled by his co- counsel.

6:15 The tribunal has multiple questions for the counsel, however he sticks resolutely to his stance and answers.

6:19 The tribunal is not convinced by the arguments being made by the counsel, and continue to question him incessantly.

6:20 Arbitrator SKR poses a long- winded question to the counsel, who take a moment and then proceeds to answer it in a number of points.

6:21 Arbitrator SR, generally silent, chooses to ask a question at this juncture.

6:21 Although the counsel answers the question, Arbitrator SR is not satisfied, and asks a follow up question.

6:22 Given the paucity of time, the counsel seeks permission to move on to his next issue.

6:23 Arbitrator SKR states a contractual principle to the counsel, and asks him to adapt his argument on the basis of the principle stated.

6:24 Once again reiterating the paucity of time, the counsel seeks permission to move onto his third issue and is granted the same by the tribunal.

6:25 Arbitrator AK is almost amused by an

6:25 Arbitrator AK is almost amused by an an argument put forth by the counsel, however he continues, not bothered. 

6:26 Having reached the end of his allocated time, the counsel asks for two more minutes to make his submissions and is granted the same by the tribunal.

6:29 The judges, noting that his time has elapsed, move to the claimant even though the counsel had not yet answered his question. Claimant Speaker 1

Claimant Speaker 1

6:30 The first counsel for the claimant begins by greeting the tribunal, introducing himself and his co- counsel and laying out how they shall be allocating their time.

6:31 The counsel states that that he will attempt to mirror the order in which the respondent presented his issues, which receives a nod of approval from the tribunal.

6:32 Arbitrator SKR however, asks the counsel to reverse the order of the issues which he shall be addressing, to which the counsel readinly agrees.

6:33 Thus far, there are no questions from the tribunal and the counsel continues uninterrupted.

6:35 When questioned by Arbitrator AK, the counsel disagrees and proceeds to explain his stance.

6:37 Arbitrator AK poses a long winded question to the counsel, however he answers it instantly, citing an authority to explain his stance.

6:38 However, Arbitrator SKR is not convinced and asks another question, and is then joined by Arbitrator SR who adds another question on the same point.

6:40 Although the tribunal is not satisfied, the tribunal asks him to move to the next issue.

6:43 The tribunal appears to have lesser questions on this issue, and are listening to the counsle without interruptions.

6:44 Faced with no questions, the counsel moves on to his next issue.

6:45 On this issue as well, thus far, the counsel has not posed any questions to the counsel.

6:47 Arbitrator SKR asks the counsel for an authority to support his claim.

6:48 The counsel then concludes his arguments, thanking the tribunal.

Claimant Speaker 1

6:49 The second counsel for the claimant begins his submissions by introducing himself and clearly laying down the issues that he will be covering.

6:51 Thus far, the tribunal has no questions for the counsel, so he continues, referring the tribunal to an authority to explain his point.

6:53 The counsel is asked a curt question by Arbitrator SKR, which he asnwers quickly.

6:53 Arbitrator SKR asks another question, which is answered by the counsel, however he is quickly corrected by Arbitrator AK with references to the clarifications.

6:57 The tribunal is not satisfied by the argument being put forth by the counsel, and he is faced by a barrage of questions from all the arbitrators. 6:58 The counsel appears to have made a gaffe, as the tribunal draws his attention to the fact sheet to point out a glaring mistake committed by him in his submissions.

6:58 The counsel appears to have made a gaffe, as the tribunal draws his attention to the fact sheet to point out a glaring mistake committed by him in his submissions.

7:03 The tribunal appears to be slightly frustrated with the counsel, and feel like he is making too many presumptions without explaining his grounds.

7:04 Arbitrator SKR in particular, seems annoyed, and continues to question the counsel repeatedly.

7:05 Arbitrator SKR again, seems astounded by the argument being put forth by the counsel, and asks him to clarify once again as he has problems with his argument.

7:05 Nonetheless, the counsel is unfazed, and he maintains his poise while answering the question.

7:07 The counsel is now faced by a question from Arbitrator AK, however as he answers, Arbitrator SKR has a smug smile on his face as he appears largely unconvinced.

7:08 Predictably, Arbitatror SKR has another question and continues to grill the counsel as he attempts to answer the questions posed to him.

7:11 The tribunal is almost amused at the arguments being put forth by the counsel and question him again.

7:12 Arbitrator SKR accuses the counsel of trying to mislead the tribunal, and the counsel, flustered, is unable to satisfactorily answer the tribunal.

7:14 Owing to the paucity time, the counsel seeks permission to quickly move on to his next issue, and is granted the same by the tribunal.

Respondent Speaker 2

7:18 The second counsel for the respondent begins his submissions confidently.

7:21 The counsel is asked to state the principle behind the argument made by him, and he does so quickly and without hesitation.

7:22 Arbitrator SKR laughs off a contention of the counsel, and states that his argument should be the exact opposite.

7:26 The tribunal is not convinced by the arguments of the counsel, and question him again on the same issue. 7:27 The counsel confidently refers to authorities to illustrate and back up his claims,

7:27 The counsel confidently refers to authorities to illustrate and back up his claims, however is asked by Arbitrator SKR to explain his stance in simpler terms. 7:29 Since the counsel is relying very heaving on one particular case, the tribunal asks him to

7:29 Since the counsel is relying very heaving on one particular case, the tribunal asks him to explain the facts of the case.

7:31 When asked about the conclusion of the case cited by him, the counsel admits his inability to do the same, eliciting a smile from Arbitrator SKR.

7:33 The counsel now chooses to oppose an argument posed by the opposing counsel, which leads to a round of questioning from the tribunals.

7:37 Having concluded his arguments, the tribunal now moves on to rebuttals.

Respondent Speaker 1: Rebuttals

7:38 Within a minute of the counsel starting his rebuttals, he is interrupted by a round of questioning from the tribunal, nonetheless he is asked to move on to his next point.

7:39 The counsel's next point of rebuttal, is met by a smile from Arbitrator SKR, although it is unclear whether he is in agreement or not in agreement.

7:41 Since the counsel's time is over, he seeks an extention of 15 seconds to conclude his points.

Claimant Speaker 1: Rebuttals

7:42 The counsel begins his rebuttals and is soon asked for his opinion on an authority cited by the respondents, which he answers satisfactorily.

Claimant Speaker 2: Rebuttals

7:44 The counsel is questioned within seconds on his point by the tribunal, he admits his error agreeing with the tribunal and continues his rebuttals.

7:46 The counsel is not being questioned much by the tribunal on his second point of rebuttal.

Respondent Speaker 2 Rebuttals

7:47 The counsel begins his rebuttals by pointing out where the claimant attempted to mislead the tribunal, but was cut off, stating that the tribunal has already noted that point.

7:48 Even on his second point, the counsel is subjected to a round of questioning from the tribunal.

COURTROOM 1

Team No. 7 v Team No. 21

Claimant Speaker 1

6:00 PM The counsel begins by briefing the tribunal on the facts of the case.

6:02 PM She is handling the questions in a composed manner and has smoothly moved on to her next issue.

6:04 PM The arbitrator AK is questioning her on the matter of the timeline of the issue.

6:07 PM The arbitrator JL is now taking that line of questioning further.

6:08 PM The arbitrator JA wants the counsel to answer on the matter of effort made to negotiate.

6:09 PM The accuracy of the facts is under doubt with the tribunal.

6:11 PM The usage of a term with respect of its context in the relevant provision is under intense discussion right now. 

6:14 PM The arbitrator JA is of the opinion that the first two submissions tie-in and therefore asks the counsel to move to her third submission.

6:15 PM The counsel makes the ambitious claim that should the tribunal tilt in favour of the respondents today, it would give in to the latter's "greed".

6:20 PM With the time up, the counsel is asked to answer their question in one sentence.

6:21 PM The counsel asks for extra time to finish a submission.

Claimant Speaker 1

6:23 PM The counsel heads straight into the breakup of the amount of compensation claimed.

6:24 PM The arbitrator AK asks the counsel to explain in brief the broad area of law that is being utilised by the counsel in her argument.

6:28 PM The counsel is being questioned on the rationale of the quantum claimed.

6:30 PM The arbitrator JL's multi-layered question makes the counsel hesitate a bit and take her time to answer the question.

6:33 PM The tribunal throws a challenging question which the counsel answers without much hesitation.

6:36 PM The counsel seeks to move to her next submission on an important question of the law.

6:43 PM The counsel states that she would like to make another argument but seeing that her time is up, she is asked to stop.

Respondent Speaker 1

6:45 PM The counsel begins with a brief introduction of himself and enumerates the arguments he will deal with. 

6:48 PM The counsel is asked by the arbitrator AK to explain a certain clause from his compendium.

6:51 PM Moving to his next submission, the counsel seems to have fairly convinced the tribunal.

6:53 PM The tribunal is questioning the counsel on merits (or the lack of them) of the jurisdiction as raised by him.

6:56 PM The counse, using legal argumentation, is putting forth his first submission.

6:59 PM The counsel is very prompt with his answers and has a good grip over the facts of the case. 7:01 PM The arbitrator slightly raises his

7:01 PM The arbitrator slightly raises his voise to stress on his question.

7:03 PM The counsel maintains an even tone through his answer which the arbitrator is satisfied with and points it out to the counsel.

7:05 PM Time's up but the counsel is permitted to finish his thought.

7:07 PM The extra time is up as well but the tribunal still has questions for the counsel.

7:09 PM The counsel is asked to summarise his contentions in one minute.

Respondent Speaker 2

7:12 PM Wasting no time, the counsel begins with the issues he has to deal with.

7:14 PM The counsel stresses on the facts and cites an authority to stress build upon his point.

7:17 PM The tribunal has some questions for the counsel which he is satisfactorily answering

7:20 PM The counsel has a mastery over the facts and has answers ready at the tip of his tongue.

7:20 PM The respondent's counsel displays immense patience and is articulate even in the midst of a line of questioning.

7:25 PM The counsel yields to the arbitrator's statement and goes on to elaborate on his point.

7:27 PM With a comfortable 5 minutes left, the counsel moves to the fourth issue. 

Respondent Speaker 2

7:31 PM The counsel has run out of time and is asked to conclude.

Rebuttals: Claimant Speaker 1

7:34 PM The counsel points out that it is not obvious for them to know the happening in the respondent's country.

Rebuttals: Claimant Speaker 2

7:36 PM The counsel seeks to prove a fallacy in the other side's argument.

7:37 PM The arbitrator AK tells the counsel that for the case is dispute, the final judgment is not necessary as it may have laid down certain principles.

Rebuttals: Respondent Speaker 1

7:39 PM The counsel quickly begins to tackle the claimant's arguments and delves into his rebuttals

Rebuttals: Respondent Speaker 2

7:41 PM The counsel swiftly takes over from his co-counsel and begins his rebuttals.

 

COURTROOM 4

Team No. 5 v. Team No. 1

Arbitrators: Vikas NM Ashwin Shankar Shruti Sabharwal

6:01 PM Both teams agree upon speaker order, exchange case manuals and communicate the same to the judges.

Respondent speaker 1

6:05 PM Respondent speaker 1 is smooth in her start. She starts with laying down a detailed structure of her submissions.

6:10 PM Counsel seems to have been stuck in a cycle of questions being thrown at her by all the three panel members.

6:05 PM Respondent speaker 1 is smooth in her start. She starts with laying down a detailed structure of her submissions.

6:10 PM Counsel seems to have been stuck in a cycle of questions being thrown at her by all the three panel members.

6:13 PM Counsel is struggling with questions by Miss. Shruti Sabharwal. She seems to be evading questions.

6:15 PM Counsel has now argued jurisdiction and asks for permission to make submission on merit

6:18 PM Mr. Vikas NM takes lead in asking questions here. Respondents seem to be lacking authority and almost all the questions directed at the respondents are with respect to their authorities.

6:21 PM Ms. Sabharwal seems to be unhappy with the fact that there is a lack of authorities. It seems her arguments lack logical and legal consistency!

6:24 PM Counsel has exhausted her time. Arbitrators grant her an additional 2 minutes to conclude with her submissions.

Claimant speaker 1

6:27 PM Counsel for claimants starts by putting forth the structure of her and her co-counsel’s structure of submissions.

6:30 PM Miss Sabharwal is quick in identifying flaws in the submissions made by counsel and shoots first few questions perhaps pertaining to the interpretation of the various provisions of law and underlying contract of the dispute.

6:32 PM Mr. Vikas NM is quick in putting forth deductive reasoned questioning counsel on the conclusions of her own submissions. Additionally he also puts forth questions with respect to the authority relied upon by the council.

6:34 PM Most of the arguments made by counsel and questions put by arbitrators at this stage are with respect to the facts. There seems to be some disagreement over the exact nature of the facts.

6:36 PM Counsel moves onto her next submission. While arbitrators don’t appear to be satisfied with the submission, they allow the counsel to do so.

6:38 PM Mr. Vikas NM is quick in identifying the drawbacks of submission made by counsel. He asks question with respect to the law applicable for interpretation.

6:40 PM Counsel moves ahead with an interesting blend of fact and law based arguments. Mr. Ashwin Shankar perhaps asks his first question seeking clarification on terms of the contract and law.

6:43 PM Mr. Shankar asks a question giving the counsel a hypothetical question. Counsel is reasonably good in answering the question and moves ahead with her submissions.

6:45 PM Counsel has exhausted her time. She takes permission from the tribunal to grant extra time to sum up her submissions.

Claimant Speaker 2

6:47 PM Counsel begins with her submissions over the left out issues. She is smooth in the beginning, distinguishing facts of the dispute under consideration from perhaps an important case having similar facts as the dispute under consideration.

6:50 PM Counsel concedes to a certain aspect of a legal standard test being argued by her. She however continues to argue that other aspects of the test apply in their isolation and perhaps further her claim.

6:54 PM Ms. Sabharwal asks question. Counsel seems to be evading this question. Miss. Sabharwal is displeased and reiterates her question. She shows her unhappiness by stating that she feels she is unable to communicate her question.

6:55 PM Counsel completes her submission and asks for permission to move onto her third submission, consequently not making her second submission.

6:57 PM Mr. Shankar asks another hypothetical. This is bedded in legal differences between various legal mechanisms of dispute resolution.

6:59 PM Counsel is smooth in her submissions and hasn’t been asked question in a while.

7:01 PM Miss. Sabharwal asks rather an interesting question. She uses argument made by counsel in her previous submission to contradict submissions of the counsel in the instant submission.

7:04 PM Mr. Vikas is good at referring to a certain legal provisions counsel has not referred to. Counsel seems to be in a trouble. She appears to be being grilled! 7:05 PM A lot of referring to case and statute manual happening.

7:07 PM Counsel has exhausted her time. She is asked to conclude her submission.

7:08 PM Another hypothetical (this time factual and situational) by Mr. Shankar.

7:09 PM Mr. Vikas continues with the question on the same point. Reply of the counsel is not satisfactory!

7:10 PM Miss. Sabharwal also asks a continuing question. Counsel gives a reply and concludes with her submission. Respondent speaker 2

7:12 PM Counsel’s start is abruptic and arbitrators are quick in asking questions.

7:15 PM Counsel evades question. However, Mr. Shankar is quick in insisting that she answers the question. She does answer the question but not to the satisfaction of arbitrators.

7:17 PM Mr. Vikas is unhappy with the understanding of counsel on a particular aspect of law, hence subsequently dismissing submissions made by her.

7:20 PM Counsel is struggling, perhaps making limited sense.

7:23 PM The Tribunal disagrees with the Counsel on one line of argumentation, and the Counsel hurries to clarify. There is much back and forth between Arbitrator Mr. Vikas and the Counsel.

7:24 PM Small confusion about the clause she is referring to right now. She is asked to repeat herself.

7:25 PM Arbitrator Mr. Vikas is still not convinced by the counsel, and questions her yet again on the same issue.

7:27 PM The speaker's response has not satisfied the Arbitrators who again refer to the facts from the problem to clarify the point of contention.

7:28 PM The speaker is granted permission to move on to his next argument. However, she is immediately questioned on her authorities and the nature and mandate of said international authorities.

7:29 PM Arbitrator Miss. Sabarwal questions the relevance of the authority considering jurisdiction in which instant case is being argued.

7:30 PM There is some dissatisfaction on part of Mr. Vikas and Miss. Sabharwal in terms of the relevance of authority considering the different professional field the current case is based in.

7:32 PM Counsel has exhausted her time. However panel allows her to take extra time to answer the question and sum up her submission.

7:34 PM Counsel concludes her submission.

Rebuttal Claimant speaker 1

7:35 PM Arbitrators question counsel with respect to the relevance of her rebuttal.

7:35 PM Counsel makes an attempt to evade the question. However, Mr. Shankar is of the opinion that the question is directly related to her submission and hence she must answer the question.

7:36 PM Counsel moves onto her next rebuttal and concludes with her rebuttals.

Rebuttal Claimant Speaker 2

7:36 PM Counsel makes three rebuttals. She cites minority opinion in case cited by respondent and distinguishes instant cases from the case sited by the respondents.

7:37 PM Mr. Shankar has a question of the counsel.

7:38 PM Reply to the answer is fairly satisfactory.

Rebuttal Respondent Speaker

7:39 PM Counsel starts with her submission. Arbitrators are quick in asking questions.

7:41 PM Counsel’s is contending certain aspect of argument. Panel members making an attempt at helping them for this contention seems to be irrelevant and perhaps opinion of panel could be in their favour.

Rebuttal Respondent Speaker 2

7:43 PM Counsel rebuts rebuttals made by the claimants in their rebuttal submissions.

7:44 PM She uses fact to make rebuttals with respect to other issues. 

COURTROOM 8

Team: 33 v. 14

Arbitrators: Arun Srikumar, Abhileen Chaturvedi, Vivekananda N

Respondent: Speaker 1

5:57 PM The first speaker from the respondent side has begun in a confident manner with the issue of jurisdiction. She cites multiple case laws to substantiate her submissions. 6:00 PM Abhileen Chaturvedi questions the speaker on the case laws cited by distinguishing it from the given fact scenario.

6:00 PM Abhileen Chaturvedi questions the speaker on the case laws cited by distinguishing it from the given fact scenario.

6:02 PM Mr. Vivekananda and Mr. Srikumar question the speaker on the nature of the obligations of the respondent. She answers there question while not conceeding the point tried to be made by the Arbitrators.

6:04 PM The Arbitrators ask the speaker a pointed question about the date of the termination of the contract. Mr. Srikumar directs the speaker's attention to a certain fact gievn in the moot problem and stresses on the need of consistency of stance. The speaker offers to clarify this by directly moving on to her later submission but is directed to continue in the order in which she earlier intended to proceed.

6:07 PM The speaker is currently addressing her third submission, Mr. Viveknanda brings her back to a pertinent question he had asked earlier.

6:10 PM The speaker has summarized her arguments on the issue of jurisdiction. Mr. Chaturvedi at the close of her arguments, poses a twofold question. Mr. Srikumar also follows suit and poses a hypothetical to the respondent and his point is agreed to by the speaker. Mr. Vivekananda however contests that such a stance might be futile because of the nature of relations between the parties at this stage. He further questions her on which law would be applicable in the given situation.

Claimant: Speaker 1

6:15 PM The speaker begins by introducing herself and her co-counsel. She then outlines the division of time as well as issues. Before she begins with her substantive arguments pertaining to the issue of jurisdiction, she contextualises the problem by talking about the claimant's contract and its nature.

6:18 PM The speaker contends certain points put forth about the seat of arbitration and cites certain authorities. Mr. Vivekananda asks if this is present in their memorial and the speaker replies in a frank manner that this is absent from the memorial as it came up after more research later.

6:19 PM The counsel is questioned with regards to the obligation of communication on part of the claimant. She responds by using the facts provided in the problem as well as case laws.

6:23 PM The counsel wraps up with her first argument and seeks permission to move on to the next issue pertaining to jurisdiction.

6:26 PM The speaker explains effectively an analogous case law while also integrating in her explanation rebuttals to arguments that can be preempted from the side of the respondent.

6:28 PM Mr. Srikumar points to a certain fact given in the problem to indicate that the claimant's submission may not stand. The speaker claims that even if she were to accept the argument put forth by Mr. Srikumar, it is not fatal to her case and proceeds to briefly explain why.

6:29 PM The speaker finishes her arguments before her time has elapsed and seeks permission to end if she can be of no more assistance to the tribunal.

Claimant: Speaker 2

6:30 PM The second speaker also begins with use of facts to contextualise the dispute. He explains that he will proceed with the arguments on merit.

6:32 PM The speaker confidently addresses his first subission and directs the Arbitrators to a certain paragraph of the moot problem which he claims is of significant importance. 

6:33 PM The speaker proceeds to explain a limb or an argument that is contingent to something he claims his co-counsel did but Mr. Vivekananda clarifies that the issue was not addressed earlier. His co-counsel also looks slightly confused but the speaker is unperturbed and continues by explaining the issue comprehensively, taking the respondent at their best.

6:37 PM The speaker is questioned by Mr. Vivekananda to which he replies in a detailed manner using the facts provided.

6:38 PM The counsel is cut short by Mr. Chaturvedi and questioned as to a certain date mentioned in the contract. The speaker replies confidently but is repeatedly questioned by the Arbtrators.

6:42 PM The counsel has moved on to the next argument. He is asked to substantiate the principle stated with case laws for certain types of contracts by Mr. Srikumar. 

6:44 PM Mr. Vivekananda questions the speaker on a fundamental point by explaining why the claimant might be at fault. The speaker clarifies his position and provides another limb to the argument should the tribunal not accept the earlier one. He substantiates this with several case laws.

6:48 PM The Arbitrators quiz the point about different kind of damages claimed by the speaker's side. The speaker asks if he can address that concern later and proceed with his earlier argument about damages at that point.

6:51 PM The speaker concludes this argument and integrates the answer to the earlier question on damages. He seems slightly flustered at this point and shuffles with his notes but resumes soon enough.

6:53 PM The speaker has elapsed his time but is graciously granted an extension so as to enable him to answer a question posed by Mr. Chaturvedi. He further asks if he may be allowed to summarize a certain issue that had not been addressed but the tribunal does not grant him this.

Respondent: Speaker 1

6:56 PM The first speaker begins again by laying down the four issues she will address. The Arbitrators begin quizzing almost immediately.

6:59 PM The speaker is repeatedly grilled by the entire tribunal. Seeing as her time has elapsed, she is graciously granted an extension. In response to her answer, Mr. Srikumar believes the counsel is mistaken about the facts and reads out certain facts from the problem. The counsel directs them to a clarification in response to this.

7:01 PM The speaker is granted a further extension to summarize her remaining submissions. She seeks another extension and the tribunal replies by saying they'll gte back to her if there is time left after her co-counsel is done.

Respondent: Speaker 2

7:03 PM The second speaker has begun in a confident manner and walks the tribunal through certain facts given in the problem.

7:05 PM Mr. Srikumar interrupts the speaker to point out a flaw but this is clarified by the speaker by pointing out a certain fact provided in the problem. The Arbitrators continue to quiz the speaker and throw hypotheticals but the speaker remains unflustered. She clarifies the application of a certain doctrine by tracing its usage in various cases.

7:10 PM As the speaker sums up her argument on a certain issue, Mr. Vivekananda points out the presence of authorites that take an opposite stance. She however clarifies her point and sticks to it. Mr. Srikumar points out that her argument does not directly address the question of validity of the respondent's acts.

7:13 PM The speaker points out a certain fact which makes the tribunal flip the pages of the problem and point out that the fact has been misquoted. To this, the speaker clarifies the meaning briefly but Mr. Srikumar takes a good minute to explain his point to her.

7:16 PM The Arbitrators continue to explain certain issues to the speaker but she remains confident and clarifies her stance.

7:20 PM The counsel moves to another issue under damages and losses as the tribunal has no questions pertaining to the earlier issue.

7:24 PM There is continuous exchange between the Arbitrators and speaker about a certain issue and the certainty of the contract thereof. The tribunal does not appear to be satisfied with the answer of the speaker and continue quizzing on this aspect.

7:26 PM The speaker now proceeds to her next issue and is granted a minute of extension to summarize the same. 

Claimant: Rebuttals

7:29 PM The rebuttals are divided into 3 minutes to deal with substantive issues addressed by the second speaker and 1 minute that shall be taken by the first speaker.

7:30 PM The speaker uses the facts provided in the problem to refute points put forth by the respondent.

7:32 PM The speaker is asked as to an authority to which he replies it is a general principle of contract law but sounds uncertain.

7:33 PM The first speaker from the respondent side is now handling rebuttals. She appears to be more confident. She is granted an extension in order to continue with her rebuttals.

7:34 PM The counsel concludes but is faced by one last query from Mr. Chaturvedi.

Respondent: Rebuttals

7:36 PM The second speaker from the respondent side begins with her rebuttals. She also emphasizes on the issues regarding damages and the budget.

7:38 PM The speaker is questioned but answers in detail confidently. She finishes her rebuttals within time bringing this round to an end.

*************

This brings us to the end of the Quarters. Now, we will announce semifinalists. 

They are, in no particular order: NLIU, ILS, Nirma and NUJS

Thank you all for sticking with us. See you tomorrow for the semis and finals. 

 -----------------

DAY 3 : The Conclusion

Hey all, welcome back to the NLSTIAM Live blog, on this final day of the competition. You find us today at the Taj West End, where the final four teams are about to go into their respective semifinal rounds.

The judges have been briefed, and now the rounds may commence.

 

SEMI-FINAL ROUNDS.

 

                                                       COURTROOM : TAMARIND

    Tribunal: Mr. Murali Neelakantan (MN), Ms. Anuradha Agnihotri (AA) and Mr. Rishab Gupta (RG)

Respondent Speaker 1

12.14 Respondents start off by challenging the jurisdiction.

12.17 RG has started off with questioning the respondent counsel. Counsel issues a quick clarification, but RG is not satisfied. He presses ahead with more questions.

12.19 AA jumps in, not clear on why questions are arising regarding the seat of arbitration. Counsel is arguing that they never consented to this seat of arbitration.

12.21 RG now has questions about the last sentence of the arbitration clause. Counsel and Arbitrator have a back and forth regarding Respondents' intentions.

12.22 MN breaks his silence, and brings up what Respondents mean with regard to lex mercutoria. They are literally talking about Latin now, and why it was used instead of English. Not something often seen.

12.23 MN's questions now move on to differences in laws, where the Respondents are unclear or maybe even unaware.

12.24 Counsel surrenders before MN and moves on to the next contention. But now, MN wants to know why Respondents have not tried to enter into negotiations. He is not convinced as to why they could not enter into negotiations if they could appear before arbitrators.

12.26 AA also now has questions about why negotiations were not initiated. It appears that Respondents have a difficult position to defend here.

12.27 Respondents are finally allowed to move on from their sticky situation.

12.28 MN now has questions for the team on their next argument. One can't help but feel a little sympathy for the Respondents at this point. But of course, anyone who has had the experience of appearing before MN will know what this feels like. This blogger himself can recall a very scary personal experience from a couple of years ago when MN eviscerated him at the NLS Univ Selection Rounds.

12.30 AA picks up where MN left off. MN and AA are now tag-teaming Respondent's Counsel.

12.31 Not to be left out, RG joins in. The arbitrators are put off by the idea that the first avenue of dispute resolution is the court system and not alternate means like Negotiation and Arbitration. This does appear to be an awkward argument to make before arbitrators.

12.33 MN wants Counsel to move on to the next issue. Small mercies. However, Respondents seem stuck on jurisdiction. MN disapproves of how failure to negotiate is being conflated with the jurisdiction issue.

12.34 Arbitrators now want to know precedent. MN does not at all agree with the Lufthansa precedent cited. He takes issue with selective quoting of the judgment. Clearly MN is very familiar with the case, and is able to quote from memory. MN is notorious for being able to do this. Perhaps the Respondents were unaware, and tried to get away with a little stretching.

12.35 RG gets in on the action, showing how the submissions are not consistent with an article cited by the Respondent.

12.38 RG is now counselling Respondent’s counsel on how to make the argument. MN says that the highlighted part submitted before them is not what is being argued, and wishes to move on. They may come back to this lack of consonance at a later point.  

12.41 In the next issue, Counsel is finally able to speak for an extended time, to the satisfaction of the arbitrators. Asked to move on to the frustration issue.

12.42 Was it a trap? MN has many questions about this issue. He is now asking for precedent for the argument being made. They have an extended back and forth about frustration, and ironically enough MN is visibly frustrated.

12.42  MN is given a break as RG takes up the baton for questioning them on this point. MN jumps in when they try to argue that notice is not required for frustration. Respondents are trying to argue that it was obvious.

12.45 “How will they know it is frustrated?”. We all know MN is frustrated by this line of argument. Obligation is discharged, not notice.

12.45 RG patiently tries to explain why notice is required, illustrating how from a commercial point of view it does not make sense not to give notice.

12.47 Respondents allowed to move on.

12.49 The arguments now surround the retainer amount.

12.50 MN wants to know why Claimants should be responsible for what happens in Respondent’s country. He is not accepting that there is no failure of consideration.

12.52 The Arbitrators say that there is nothing in the contract says that any service provided should be useful. AA also wants to know what the Respondents mean by a total failure of consideration.

12.53 We move on to the next submission. 

12.54 Arbitrators find the argument that the Respondents have sovereign immunity hard to digest. What is the sovereign function the Respondents are performing, they want to know.

12.57 The Arbitrators can just not be convinced that the Respondent is a state entity performing a sovereign function. If Saudi Aramco doesn't qualify, in so many cases from the '70s, (and when their only asset was petroleum, even then they have never claimed or gotten sovereign immunity), how can the respondents?

12.59 The Respondents' arguments regarding immunity are now amusing MN to no end. The Respondents seem to be saying that they can sue the Claimants, but they can't be sued, and whoever sues them cannot be successfully. They also appear to be citing cases against themselves.

13.01 Respondent Speaker 1 was given 21 additional minutes. This just goes to show that the Arbitrators are not only engaging, but also generous.

Claimant Speaker 1

13.01 Claimants have begun their submissions. One wonders what this bench has waiting for them.

13.03 MN makes no distinction between claimant and respondent. Claimants have also started to be thoroughly questioned. AA and MN have resumed their tag-teaming, this time of the Claimant. RG can barely contain his grin. These Arbitrators really know their stuff, and teams have very little leeway when making their submissions.

13.07 The nature of the breach is being questioned. What is the requirement for a dipute? How did one come about here? When did the dispute arise?

13.08 A lengthy back and forth over emails are happening here. When are the Russians when you need them?

13.10 RG does not seem to accept that the Claimants have made their best efforts. In fact, he is trying to suggest that they change their argument, in order to better convince him. Quite cheeky, really. But then, why should counsels have all the fun?

13.12 MN's deep knowledge of precedent is shown once again as he starts discussing the compendium before him. He in fact takes what Counsel was citing and turns it back around to bring back attention to an earlier question he was asking. This round is an education for all parties, really.

13.13 The facts are incomplete, the claimants say and speculation regarding what's left out is not being allowed by the Arbitrators.

13.14 RG is now asking Counsel to just tell him how the arbitrators should be reading a line in their arbitration agreement.

13.17 Counsel is tracking back on an argument she made, and trying again. Arbitrators now say it's a while new argument and not a small change as she tried to make it sound. But, they seem to be fine with it and are engaging.

13.17 MN still wants to know what the counsels intended when they wrote the line in their written agreement. One small line for a drafter, one big chunk of time for a speaker.

13.19 RG and MN continue to press on that line.

13.20 MN is confounded by how the Claimant's main conflict is not the same as the Respondents.

13.21 RG tries once again to tell the Claimants what they should be arguing.

13.22 Counsel is allowed to move on (not because the Arbitrators are satisfied, but because time is running out, MN clarifies).

13.24 Time has now become a major factor, with the Arbitrators letting several full sentences to be spoken by Counsel without them interjecting.

13.25 RG now tries to understand how estoppel applies here.

13.26 MN now wants to engage on a case being cited, where he is convinced the facts are different and thus the principle would not apply.

13.28 MN does not accept the argument regarding estoppel based on what is being cited.

13.30 Chuckles from the Arbitrators as claimants argue that they tried their level best.

13.33 Claimants now able once more to get some time to speak uninterrupted. RG finally once again tries to direct them through a better means by which to make the argument they are making.

13.34 Counsel now moves on to the issue of breach, on prompting by AA.

13.38 MN deftly detects Counsel's attempt to sidestep a question and brings them back to the point.

13.42 AA and MN start once again to press hard, this time on damages.

Claimant Speaker 2

13.44 Counsel begins her submissions.

13.46 Counsel makes the mistake of bringing up a case all by herself. MN and RG latch on to that. But they are more generous with letting her speak. But oh, AA is the one with the interjection this time. Just when counsel thought she was out, she is pulled back in.

13.48 RG piles on to AA's questions. Sovereign immunity, everyone's favourite topic, is what we're talking about now.

13.50 If you thought only the Respondents could dig themselves into a ditch over a sovereign function argument, you thought wrong.

13.55 MN drawing an analogy here. "Why can't you tell me that you can't hear?" "Because I'm deaf. I can't hear you asking him."

13.57 The arbitrators are with the Claimants on immunity, counsel is being asked to move on. They want to know that since frustration was caused by an act of state, now what.

13.59 The claimants seem to have not considered this question.

14.00 MN seems to think this is the claimants trying to refuse to address the arbitrators on their direct questions on frustration.

14.01 MN wants to know how equity works in this case.

14.03 RG is making inquiries now regarding Claimant's understanding of remedies. Extracontractual claims are not being accepted by MN.

14.04 "What is your claim? You are the Claimant, you tell us." Not something you usually hear.

14.08 Now the question being presented to the Claimants is whether it makes a difference whether it's frustration or breach.

Respondent Speaker 2

14.09 Respondent's counsel begins his submissions.

14.12 MN doesn't take very long to start grilling Counsel.

14.14 RG questions him on differences between precedent being cited and the facts at hand.

14.15 MN says that the proposition favours the Claimants. Respondent's counsel is taken aback. AA also contributes to this, substantiating how the Claimants are justified on this account. Counsel uses this to his favour to try and establish how the Claimants are not pursuing that line, and therefore it does not apply here. MN is visibly impressed. 

14.16 AA continues this line of questioning, and has a back and forth with counsel.

14.17 Counsel also engages with RG on a point, following which MN wants to talk about a case that Counsel had submitted before the bench. It appears to have been decided in favour of the contractors, which is very obviously not what Counsel wants here. MN points out that this hurts the Respondent's cause.

14.19 MN is now picking out the relevant parts in that particular case. Following this, he wants to move on. Counsel moves on to his next argument.

14.20 Counsel seems to be confused about how causation and mitigation works.

14.23 AA and MN now questioning counsel on loss of profit.

14.24 RG wonders whether counsel's argument about loss of profit hinges on mitigation.

14.25 Counsel allowed to move on to applicable rate of interest.

14.28 We now move on to rebuttals. MN remarks he has a flight to catch.

Respondent Speaker 1 Rebuttals.

14.30 Counsel looks like he is going to breeze through rebuttals, but is interrupted by RG who redirects him to an argument.

14.31 Counsel is given an opportunity to correct an argument.

Claimant Speaker 1 Rebuttals.

14.32 This Counsel does in fact breeze through her rebuttals.

Claimant Speaker 2 Rebuttals.

14.33 After checking with the timer as to how long she has, Counsel commences rebuttals. She is made to clarify on a certain point by RG.

14.35 The back and forth between RG and Counsel continues even as the Counsel goes on. Counsel is denied an extension.

Respondent Speaker 2 Rebuttals

14.36 Respondent finishes his rebuttals with no interruptions.

14.36 Time's up, round's over.

 

 

COURTROOM: PLUMERIA

Tribunal:  Pranav Mago, Rajashekhar Rao, Vivekananda N

Claimant Speaker 1

12.05 The speaker presents arguments on jurisdiction and is questioned intensively by the evidently active Tribunal. She attempts to respond but the tribunal does not seem satisfied. The tribunal constantly challenges the knowledge of the speaker.

12.10 The speaker moves on to her submissions on breach of obligations. The arbitrators continue to question the speaker’s submissions as the speaker attempts to answer and use his questions to further her submission.

12.16 After a particularly long question by the lead Arbitrator (Mr. Rajashekhar Rao), the andwer does not satisfy Mr. Pranav Mago and he picks up the questioning. The speaker seeks a clarification as to his question but is interrupted by an unconvinced Mr. Rajashekar Rao.

12.20 The speaker however, manages to keep a calm demeanour despite the constant enquiry. Unable to finish her submissions, she requests the Tribunal for extra time. The Tribunal accedes to the request. Even during the delivery of summarized submissions in the two-minute extension, she is questioned by the Arbitrators. The speaker concludes and thanks the Bench when one last question is posed by Mr. Vivekananda and the speaker promptly answers.

Claimant Speaker 2                                                            

12.30 Within 15 seconds of the commencement of her speech, the second speaker representing the claimant is questioned by Mr. Rajashekhar Rao who once again does not seem satisfied with her response. The speaker seems slightly ruffled but manages to clarify. The speaker presents case law and hypotheticals at length to support her submission.

Meanwhile, the first speaker is diligently making notes for rebuttals while the third member observes with apprehension.

12.35 All three arbitrators pose questions successively, and the speaker struggles to handle the barrage only to be interrupted with successive questioning. The tribunal nods in seeming approval upon her clarifications. On the next question however, the speaker stammers but manages to collect herself.

12.40 The tribunal’s doubts having been answered (whether satisfactorily or not remains to be seen), she moves on to the second issue. As her submissions begin, she is sharply questioned by Mr. Rajashekhar Rao who instructs her to answer simply in yes or no without qualifications.

12.45 The second speaker has a more accented and animated style of speaking in comparison with her colleague, whose style of speaking was more conversational.

12.47 The tribunal asks what the claimant’s entitlement would be if they are found in breach, and the speaker promptly presents arguments in the alternative.  The second speaker too is granted an extra two minutes to summarize her remaining submissions during which Mr. Rajashekhar Rao questions her as to the simplistic and academic nature of her argument.

The extra time taken by the claimant is certain to constrain their arguments in rebuttal later. Mr. Pranav Mago asks a few last questions after the conclusion of the extended time. Mr. Rajashekhar Rao has to step in to clarify but thanks the speaker in conclusion before she answers.

Respondent Speaker 1

12.55 The Tribunal gives the respondent bench a minute to reallocate their time in light of the claimant’s submissions. The first speaker begins confidently by delineating the allocation of issues. As expected, questioning by the active Tribunal soon begins, initiated again by Mr. Rajashekhar Rao. He interrupts the speaker’s attempts to answer and sharply instructs him as to what he wants the respondents to show to the tribunal in order to convince them.

13.01 Mr. Vivekananda poses a conceptual question to test the knowledge of the speaker, which he is able to answer. Mr. Pranav Mago and Mr. Rajashekhar Rao question the respondent’s use of a particular authority and its applicability to the instant case. The speaker responds and invites the tribunal’s attention to the surprisingly thick compendiums placed before them.

13.04 Mr. Rajashekhar Rao is dissatisfied by the response of the speaker that the facts are silent as to that point. He remarks that the stance they are taking amounts to being “disingenuous” and is an instance of “the pot calling an electric kettle black”. A light moment is shared when the speaker prefixes “Learned” in addressing Mr. Rajashekhar Rao and attempts to retract and apologize, but he laughs and says that he can call him learned as he doesn’t mind. 

13.08 The first respondent speaker seems noticeably more nervous and ruffled by the constant questions and interruptions than his counterpart on the claimant bench.

13.14 Mr. Rajashekhar Rao asks the speaker as to the objectivity or subjectivity of the test employed. The speaker evades a direct response and details the authority used and the arbitrator brings him back to the point. Mr. Rao takes him on a line of constant questioning but the speaker is not easily diverted and uses the questions to put forth his submissions. Mr. Rao asks a specific question as to the arbitrators and year of an authority cited but the speaker states that he is unsure.

13.18 As the speaker answers a question posed by Mr. Vivekananda, Mr. Rao interrupts him and asks the speaker to demonstrate his submission with facts as otherwise “it is always nice to just say these things”. 

13.20 Mr. Rao states with some dissatisfaction that it seems like the respondent does not have an answer at all to the particular line of questioning. As the speaker answers a question by Mr. Mago, Mr. Rao again states that his response suffers from a “fundamental misconception” as to the law.

Respondent Speaker 2

13.22 The second speaker begins off somewhat shakily and hastily, perhaps having lost his confidence after the intensive questioning undergone by his colleague. He too is subjected to critical questioning by the Tribunal as Mr. Rao are Mr. Vivekananda test the strength of his arguments in light of the claimant’s submissions.

13.24 The speaker is using the odd term “my learned arbitrator” to address the members of the Tribunal. He is also noticeably faster and less confident as compared to the first speaker.

13.25 Mr. Rao states that the counsel in responding to Mr. Mago’s question, is in a “realm of speculation”.

13.30 The bench’s questioning continues as the speaker’s confidence increasingly diminishes as he notices his time running out. In this state of precipitation, he accidently refers to the arbitrator as “my learned counsel”. With the permission of the tribunal, he quickly moves on to his next issue.

13.35 Upon questioning the admissibility of the respondent’s counter-claim, Mr. Rao looks satisfied with the speaker’s response. With just 5 minutes of his time left, he moves on to the next issue and the tests employed therein.

13.41 Mr. Rao questions the speaker as to the repondents’ non-inclusion of a particular citation in the compendium to which the speaker responds that constraints on length prevented them from doing so. Mr. Rao seeks clarification from the time-keeper who informs him that there is no page limit on compendiums. The speaker, embarrassed, asks permission to move on, which makes Mr. Rao smila and relent.

Rebuttals by Claimant

13.47 The first speaker confidently delivers the rebuttals to the respondent’s submissions with respect to her issues. Mr. Rao questions her as to the judges of a decision cited by her to which she is unable to respond.

13.50 The second speaker continues the rebuttals for side claimant and does so with a calm demeanour and enunciated speech without much questioning.

Rebuttals by Respondent

13.54 There is initially some confusion with respect to the time available for rebuttals to the respondent since both teams have exceeded their prescribed time. The tribunal meanwhile converses amongst itself and shares a light moment.

13.56 The first speaker commences rebuttals for side respondent. Mr. Mago questions the counsel’s use of a particular authority since the bench has already distinguished the case cited; the speaker obliges immediately. He is questioned further by Mr. Rao before concluding.

13.59 The second speaker begins his rebuttals in his characteristic fast manner. Mr. Mago questions the second speaker too.

14.01 The round concludes and the teams disperse to allow the tribunal to deliberate.

 ************

BREAKS:

The finalists are ILS and NUJS.

*************

NOW: INTERACTION BASED ON THE MOOT PROBLEM

We now have something very special for our attendees. The four judges for the Grand Final will be discusssing the problem at a session organised in the Tamarind Hall at the Taj West End.

In the interest of fairness, the finalists have been kept out of the session. They will be preparing themselves for the final round while everyone else enjoys the session with the judges.

The panel is being moderated by Mr. Shubham Jain, IV Year Student at NLSIU.

The judges are : Ms. Sophie Nappert, Mr. Gary Bell, Mr. Sitesh Mukherjee and Mr. Sumeet Kachwaha.

Also in the interest of fairness (and to prevent leaks to the finalists) this blog will not be covering the panel discussion.  So unless one of the teams is working with the Russians (always a worry these days), we will have a fair and equitable final round.

*******

The final rounds were livecast over Facebook. We will update this space with the link shortly.

RESULTS

The results are as follows:

 

Winner, Best Memorial:

Claimant - NLIU, Bhopal.

Respondent - NLU-Delhi

 

Winner, NLSTIAM : NUJS, Kolkata

 

Thank you for sticking with us over the last three days. We hope this liveblog was an informative and enjoyable read. See you all next year.