•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

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

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences
An estimated 7-minute read
 Email  Facebook  Tweet  Linked-in

March 11, 2016, 4.03 pm

We are delighted to announce that the Seventh NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition commences today! Organized in association with Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co., a leading law firm of the country with an extremely strong competition law practice along with LexisNexis a leading provider of online research services, and under the patronage of the Competition Commission of India, this moot, has grown considerably over the last six years to become one of the most popular moot court competitions in India.

Over 35 teams have arrived on campus and the 11th-13th March will see them battle it out for the top prize. This year’s edition is also significant because for the very first time, we hosted the NLU Jodhpur Panel Discussion on Antitrust Law.

The exchange of memorials has taken place and excitement is running high as we are minutes away from the commencement of the rounds. Only eight teams will qualify for the quarter-finals which are scheduled for tomorrow!

Whether you want to see how your college is faring, or are just generally interested, keep checking this space for updates. Also, stay tuned for LIVE blogging for Sunday’s much-awaited final!

For more updates, follow our Facebook page here:


March 12, 2016, 4.20 p.m.

It's Day Two of the Seventh NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition. A short while ago, the breaks were announced and we now know which eight teams have made it to the quarter finals!

In no particular order, they are:

1. Amity Law School, Delhi

2. Symbiosis Law School, Noida

3. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab

4. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow

5. School of Law, SASTRA University

6. School of Law, Christ University

7. NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad

8. National Law School of India University, Bangalore

There were lots of cheers, some disappointment and a lot of people putting up brave faces as the results were announced. It was nice though, to see many participants giving one another handshakes. That's the spirit, folks!

Meanwhile, the quarters are scheduled to start by 5.00 p.m. There's tension in the air, as the time grows closer.

Stay tuned to see who will make it to the semifinals!

March 12, 2016, 7.45 p.m.

After a gruelling round of quarter-finals, we have our four semi-finalists!

They are:


2. SLS, Noida



March 12, 2016, 10.30 p.m. 

At the end of an action-packed day, two teams remain to battle it out for the top prize tomorrow.

They are:



Keep watching this space as we bring to you live blogging for tomorrow's final!

 March 13, 2016

Good morning. We now start with the first speaker from the appellants side.

The first issue being dealt with by the counsel discusses issues like relevant market and how market definition does not include governance. The counsel also mentions that market share cannot be dertermined. The counsel lays emphasis on how popularity of the sport has a role to play in its market and how sports has not achieved an independence as it is liked with the previous season. The triangular relationship functions differently for free for air market and pay tv market.

10.20 a.m.

Speaker 1 from side Appellants has just been asked whether he has any statistics to back up his claim that an ESPN would have greater viwership than a Doordarshan. He responds that he does not have any statistics,but he is saying this based on the behavious of a 'rational consumer.'

10.25 a.m.

Speaker 1 has moved on to his last issue, regarding the compensation application. Section 53 N is silent on the procedure, however, the invocation would violate the principle of sub-judice. He says this could lead to a situation where the Appellants could end up paying for no wrong.

10.30 a.m.

Speaker 2 from RMLNLU is now arguing! She is arguing on the issue as to whether the agreement clauses denied market access to other competitors,

The judge asks where in the Competition Act supply side substitutability is mentioned as a consideration. Counsel has been asked to look at the defnition of relevant product market. Counsel has pleaded ignorance as to where in the Act supply side substitutability has been mentioned but submits that it has evolved through case law.

The judge asks, 'The internet market is characterised by free services. How, then does providing free services show dominance?'

The response is that a 'rational consumer' will not switch to a channel telecasting with a 15 minute delay. She had earlier argued that a sports enthusiast would 'never like to miss a round or two.' 

10.40 a.m.

Speaker 2 argues the relevance of 'intended use' of sports goods . She now presents the 'pro-competitive effects' of the exclusive agreement. Research articles are being submitted in support. It is argued that an internationl manuacturer is given security and therefore incentive, leaving the market relatively open.

10.45 a.m.

RGNUL as respondents are now arguing! Speaker 1 is laying down the issues he will address.

He argues that unfair conditions have not been imposed on the Appellants. The relevant product markets and geographic markets are now being defined. 

 10.50 a.m.

Counsel argues that the audience for the sport of Kabaddi should be considered to be a separate market, by itself. He further says that he agrees with the Appellants that a sport market is separate from other markets. However, the Kabaddi market should be considered as separate in itself.

 10.55 a.m.

Speaker 1 from RGNUL is being grilled by the judges! He has attempted to answer all of these questions. The speaker says that the question of abuse is with respect to the point of view of the consumers and that there in no difference between pay tv and free to air channel. 

11.00 a.m.

Speaker 1 from RGNUL says that the act deals with the sharing of signals. Answering the question of the judge, the speaker points to the clariification by saying that they were placed in competitive disadvantage.

11.05 a.m.

Counsel says that their rights are shared with media bohemia and hence they cannot be said to be dominant in the market. The judge asks if the respondents are responsible for broadcasting rights of BKL.The respondent faulters by contradicting his own arguments.

11.10 a.m.

Speaker 2 says that he will discuss the last three issues. The counsel says that participants rely on KFB for national and international competitions. Answering a question, the counsel  says that governance and regulation are related to dominance. The speaker lays emphasis on functional aspect. 

11.15 a.m.

The judge asks about the harm caused as the participants have an option of joining the tournament. The counsel responds by saying that by organising such training camps, BKL showed its intention of not allowing all participants to participate in any other league.

 11.20 a.m.

The counsel says that a federation has more importance than a player as the player is bound by the rules of the federation. He also discusses the aspect of trade - restricton which has arisen from stopping these participants to participate in other leagues.

11.25 a.m.

The speaker discusses the two agreements in the case.He argues in favour of these agreements being anti-competitive. The counsel requests the agreement to be governed with Competition Act ,2002. The speaker talks about the purpose of the competition act- that of increasing competition and not actually creating a monopoly. The counsel reads the facts to substantiate his arguments on auto- renewal clause.

11.30 a.m.

The counsel , in his final submisson, discussed the importance of tenders.The speaker feels that such tenders have not been respected in the given fact scenario.

11.35 a.m.

Speaker 1 from RML presented himself again in order to rebut the points laid down by the respondents. After his submissions, speaker 2 from RGNUL came on the podium to rebut the various arguments made by the appellants.

11.40 a.m.

After an exciting round with intense arguments, the judges left the room to deliberate. 

Stay tuned to find out who wins the 7th NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competition, 2016!


The wait is finally over! The following are the results:

Second Best Student Advocate- Aastha Kulshreshtha, Amity Law School, Delhi

Best Student Advocate- Samarth Madan, Amity Law School, Delhi

Best Researcher- Sudhanshu Shekhar, Rajiv Gandhi law, IIT Kharagpur

Best Memorial- NLSIU, Bangalore

Best Student Advocate(Finals)-Pushkar Singh, RMLNLU, Lucknow

Runners Up- RMLNLU, Lucknow

Winners- RGNUL,Patiala

We congratulate all the winners and thank you for being with us! Hope to see you next year at the Eighth NLU Antitrust Law Moot Court Competion!


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