•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

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

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences
An estimated 9-minute read
 Email  Facebook  Tweet  Linked-in

The Results are here!

Winner : Jindal Global Law School (2nd time in a row!)

Runners-up : National University of Singapore

Best Oralist in Preliminary Rounds : Victor Leong, National University of Singapore

Best Claimant Memorial : School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore

Best Respondent Memorial : Jindal Global Law School

The winners and runners-up each receive a iPad Mini and Kindle Paperwhite each, courtesy of Trilegal. The Best Oralist in Preliminary Rounds, Best Claimant Memorial and Best Respondent Memorial each receive a book vouchers worth INR 10,000 each.

Congratulations! See you at the 9th NLSTIAM 2016.

--

At the valedictory session, Dr. R. Venkata Rao (Vice Chancellor, NLSIU) thanked Trilegal for their engagement with the law school and looked forward to a fulfilling relationship with the firm in the future.

Mr. Karan Singh (Founding Partner, Trilegal) delivered the Vote of Thanks and pledged the firm's support to the Moot for the foreseeable future. He also announced the creation of a separate arbitration practice group in the firm, recognizing the growth of arbitration as a distinguished area of practice of the law. He particularly appreciated Mr. Devashish Krishnan's "world-class" moot proposition and also thanked the students who worked on preparing the Bench Memorial and conducted detailed judges' briefings before rounds.

--

At the end of arguments, in a very surprising move, NUS and JGLS both waived their rebuttals. The tribunal now calls upon the parties to recite their prayers. Mr. Krishnan was puzzled by the lack of a prayer for costs in either memorial and whether the Claimants represented by NUS called for compensation or not. With this, the final round comes to an end. Please stay tuned for results which are due in the next 15 minutes.

--

The speaker is granted an additional 3 minutes to the speaker to dwell further on expropriation and the counsel is asked to explain how expropriation need not be compensated if such expropriation were to be reasonable, non-discrimatory and fair. The speaker reiterates, without developing much further, that such expropriation was "required for larger public good". 

--

The speaker subsequently seeks to move to the final prong of her arguments on MFN status, which is not entertained by the tribunal since the Claimants did not argue on those lines. The speaker, zips through the final arguments and is called upon by the Chairperson of the tribunal to present the "volumes of investment law", the speaker duly recites a catena of caselaw - as requested. Mr. Krishnan is insistent and subjects the counsel to some intense grilling on thsi point and the speaker copes very well.

--

The speaker does not relent as she now moves on to present how State action was not targetted and on this point the tribunal interrogates her on question of the manner of the bailout that was made out to the affected bank and whether policy governing dispursal of funds was discriminatory. The speaker forcefully argues on facts that that a meeting of the failing bank's management with the regulator or the measures that were undertaken were commensurate to the severity of the dire straits that the bank was in. Mr. Krishnan cuts through these arguments and calls upon the counsel to argue on law and present the intention argument to reiterate their overall submission. The speaker, as expected, duly zips through the same.

--

The soliloquy is soon interrupted as Mr. Mukherjee questions the speaker on how the assets were transferred between two banks in question and the speaker is able to provide a cogent response and yields the floor to his co-speaker for the remaining three issues. The second speaker runs through her arguments on expropriation at break-neck speed and engages with legitimate expectations and the second prong of booking losses on different books. The tribunal strains to keep up and so does this liveblogger! 

--

JGLS begins arguments for Respondents and the first speaker sets out a three-fold scheme of arguments and begins arguments on jurisdiction and the first speaker in a well-rehearsed fashion carries forward and is able to answer a few elementary questions. However, the speaker trips over a line of machine-gun questioning by the the tribunal and when given the option to answer the question or proceed to his next issue on nationality. The speakers elected the latter option and sidestepped the tribunal entirely. Visibly irked, the tribunal begins subjecting the speaker to a line of relentless questioning on the basics of citizenship and nationality, the speaker seems to argue wrong law that confuse the theory of laws regulating citizenship for nationality and vice-versa. The tribunal is not impressed. The speaker now seeks to jump to his final prong of arguments on protections granted to the ailing banks, the speaker, glad at the lack of an armada of questioning, proceeds with a soliloquy and seasons heavily with caselaw. Stay steady JGLS!

--

The speaker moves on to the next prong of his argument and claims that State action was unduly non-transparent and thus, is tantamount to a violation of protections guaranteed to investors. The apeaker speeds through the remainder of his arguments and wraps up submissions from Claimants.

--

The tribunal fields another question on the speaker and the speaker shows incredible insight by distinguishing between the discrimination and arbitrary action that the Claimant might be a victim of. Questions do not abate as Mr. Krishnan asks the Claimant to defend his arguments in light of damning reports from the Bank of International Settlements. NUS seeks to explain the argument further by engaging with points on whether the Bank was intentionally run into the ground. In his forceful argument, the gesticulating speaker flings the mic off the podium. (High impact argument!)

--

The second speaker, just like the first speaker outlines a skeleton of arguments and tackles head on the question surrounding arbitrary action. Mr. Neelakantan interrupts NUS's well rehearsed speech with a question pertaining to good regulatory practice which could act against funneling debts away in subsidiary corporate bodies. The speaker took a moment and argued extempore. Persuasive!

--

The first speaker, in the final leg of his argument, stumbles and is unable to recall to case-facts of a pivotal case - nonetheless, the speaker darts through the rest of his argument, dodging any questions that could arise from the Tribunal. The first speaker for Claimant from NUS wraps his submission.

--

The tribunal is very persistent and continues to subject NUS to further grilling and asks them to illustrate a situation wherein the Claimants would not be arguing that expropriation had taken place. Mr. Krishnan goes a level further and interrogates the speaker on jurisprudence surrounding legality and illegality of State action. The first speaker from NUS receives an extension of 3 minutes to begin & conclude his 3rd argument on questions pertaining to nationality of the corporate bodies involved.

--

The Chairman of the tribunal seeks to grill NUS a bit by asking whether the bankruptcy of the affected bank would be tantamount to expropriation. The tribunal latches on to this string of questioning and subjects the speaker to a barrage of queries on the manner in which intent of the State can be discerned. NUS answers, however, the judges are far from fully satisfied. 

--

Cracks appear in NUS's argument as Mr. Neelakantan questions if a notice of arbitration would be tantamount to a willingness to settle. NUS realises the error in its arguments and begs indulgence of the Tribunals to correct their argument. The speaker now moves on to the next issue on expropriates and argues that there was an indirect expropriation and that there indeed was a substantial depravation of economic value of the investment. NUS's facts oriented arguments, contrasted to traditional- caselaw heavy arguments seems to please the tribunal very much!

--

The tribunal doesn't seem to give up as they are persistent with their burst of questions. Yet, the speaker maintains a calm & composed demeanour and replies to queries on the phraseology of the text of the treaty and  to the Tribunal's satisfaction.

--

The tribunal with Mr. Krishnan as Chairperson listens intently as NUS tackles jurisdictional questions. The speaker has impeccable structure as he proceeds with outlining, in simple language, how the Tribunal's jurisidiction is not ousted by not applying within the stipulated 6 month limit. Mr. Neelakantan intervenes and catches NUS off-guard by asking them about any counter-argument which may be fatal to their case. The speaker is caught off-guard, with follow-up queries from Mr. Krishnan and Mr. Mukherjee, but he gets back on track and the Tribunal (and we!) are pleased.

--

The final round now commences, with the Claimant (National University of Singapore) opens their submissions wby addressing 6 of the 9 probable issues in the moot proposition. The first speaker is calm and composed as he outlines the skeleton of arguments that he shall argues. Strong start!

--

We now have our finalists. Best of luck to National University of Singapore and Jindal Global Law School as they present their case before an illustrious bench comprising Mr. Devashish Krishnan (NLSTIAM'15 problem setter, international arbitration specialist), Mr. Murali Neelakantan (ex-Global GC, Cipla) and Mr. Sitesh Mukherjee (Head of Dispute Resolution, Trilegal).

The teams are busy preparing for what is set to be a highly interesting and gripping round. We'll be posting updates of the final round which commences in another 15 minutes.

--

After an intense quarter final round, the following teams have made the break for the semi-finals.

Congratulations!

  1. National University of Singapore
  2. School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore
  3. Jindal Global Law School, Sonepat
  4. GNLU Gandhinagar

--

Hello and welcome to the 8th National Law School Trilegal International Arbitration Moot - 2015's Liveblog on LegallyIndia.com!

We will be bringing to you live, real-time updates of the final round which is being held at the Taj West End, Bangalore from 3 pm onward.

The Preliminary Rounds were held yesterday with 24 teams battling for 8 quarter-final spots. We'd like to congratulate the following teams for making the break! 

  1. NLU Delhi
  2. National University of Singapore
  3. MS Ramaiah College of Law
  4. NLU Jodhpur
  5. Jindal Global Law School, Sonepat
  6. NLU Odisha
  7. GNLU Gandhinagar
  8. School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore

This year's moot is, in a departure from the previous seven editions, is based on investment treaty arbitration. The moot proposition, which is set by Mr. Devashish Krishan (International arbitration specialist and Class of 2002, NLS), is inspired by recent developments in the Eurozone and challenges participants to examine how the enactment of laws pursuant to a financial bailout can trigger an investment treaty dispute.

Furthermore, the 2015 moot has now adopted staggered submission of memorials. The moot has also, in an effort to gather feedback, issued marksheets to teams to evaluate judges and the organization of the moot by the organizing committee.

--

Moot Court Society,

National Law School of India University

--

The 8th NLS Trilegal International Arbitration Moot Court Competition  - 2015 (NLSTIAM) is proud to be sponsored and supported by Trilegal, our title sponsors.

Click to show 1 comment
at your own risk
(alt+c)
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.