The teams are all smiles for the group photo.
31st March
Day 1 -Preliminary Rounds
10:00 am
RGNUL is hosting its 7th national moot competition gaining reputation over time, has received registrations from 63 Law Universities and Colleges from all over the country who will battle it out for the coveted winning position.Day One of the preliminary rounds began in full swing with teams bustling to their respective court rooms.Live updates of the team’s performance will be updated on the blog throughout the day by your bloggers Shreyas Vaghe, Bhava Sharma with help from a plethora of talented students reporting the proceedings
a10:30am
Court Room H6: UILS v. LPU
UILS
From the Appellant side, the speaker one faltered for a bit under questioning from the judges but that could also be attributed to the less time of 12 minutes taken by him. But, the speaker 2 has given a good start to their side with a cogent voice. Looks like the sun may not set too soon on prospects of team UILS.
LPU
From the Respondents, the first speaker provided a good start to their arguments and gave well defined answers to the judge’s queries. Although he faltered a bit towards the end but that has been well covered by the speaker 2 who seems to be standing his ground against the grilling of the judges. There is a lot of confusion about the appropriate court under which they have sought remedy though!
10:30 am
Court Room C11: Lincoln College of Law v. ICFAI, Hyderabad
Lincoln College
The judges are asking simple questions but appellant’s speaker 1 is unable to answer them. I guess begging pardon is not the solution.
ICFAI
The respondents are well versed with the facts unlike appellants. Speaker 1 was grilled brutally but answered confidently, judges were quite convinced by the second speaker although she wasn’t aware of the practical applicability of clubbing of appeals. Second speaker is being grilled and trying to stand on her feet.
10:35 am
Court Room H4: JGLS v. Christ Law School
JGLS
Appellants Speaker 1 has started with briefing of facts confidently. Judges proceeded with the questions regarding required issues. He tackled the questions with ease. He proceeds to give some case laws but judges are doubtful of their relevance .
Appellants Speaker 2 Judges seems impressed with the manner of speaking and understanding of the facts. The speaker 1 is also answering the questions to the satisfaction of judges. However final statements by Speaker 1 didn’t go well.
CHRIST
Speaker 1 of the respondent started with the equal composure. The speaker has some problem conveying the crux of her contention but quickly provides the clarification, drawing an affirmative nod from the judges. The bench seems adequately convinced by the arguments and with the time slipping fast, she concludes her contentions and invites her co-counsel.
Speaker 2 appears to have impeccable courtroom etiquette as well as she launches into his speech by explaining the scheme of his argument. This round turning out to be a equal matchup.
Court Room A5: School of Law SASTRA v. Amity Law School,Lucknow
SASTRA
(Appellant) speaker 1 is a well versed with the facts but not confident in speaking. She tries to stand by her arguments despite the constant grilling by the judges.
The Appellants have completed their arguments with confidence after the first speaker was fumbled by the pernicious questions. The second speaker carefully took the boat to the shore and saved it from sinking. The second speaker faces all the questions with a grin on the face and displays eloquence and confidence. The Appellants have properly completed their arguments and prayed before the court.
Court Room C1: NLU Delhi v. Geeta Institute of Law
A beautiful bench with a pack of smart questions. Both the teams stumbled to answer the basic questions & queries of the bench. After many witty comments made by the bench which provided moments of laughter the rounds ended on the south pole for both the teams, especially Respondents.
Court Room H1: Faculty Of Law, Rajasthan v. MNLU, Mumbai
Faculty of Law, Rajasthan
The speaker from the petitioner started off confidently but the inflexible questions from the judges seem to have shaken her stance in forming the arguments.
The second speaker, seems under confident and started off through a flee aid- the passing of chits. Judges are surely not impressed by the poor court manners she manifests. She does really know how to contradict her statement, pretty well. Entirely unclear about the facts of the case.
MNLU, Mumbai
The speaker from the respondent had a rough start. But somehow managed throughout the arguments by preying on the safe code “my co-speaker is going to deal with it”.
Speaker 2 did prove to be better indeed. Pretty confident, appreciable court manners and clear with the facts of the case.
Court Room C2: Amity Law School, Rajasthan v. NUALS,Kochi
The Respondents have started out strong. They’ve definitely learnt a thing or two from the appellants. The appellants are visibly intimidated.
The speaker 2 carries on the confident streak of her predecessor. The judges look impressed, while the appellants look defeated.
Court Room C4: University Five year College, University of Rajasthan v. Jitendra Chauhan College of Law
Appelant side
The speaker 1, though after starting confidently has flummoxed due to intense grilling by the judges on law.
The 2 speaker, however, restores that lost confidence and is arguing wonderfully, while backing his arguments with appropriate case laws and answering the questions by the judges satisfactorily.
Respondent side
The speaker 1 presented her arguments confidently and was successful in convincing the judges with her answers.
The 2 speaker was subjected to the constant and intense grilling by the judges from the very beginning. However, judges seem to be satisfied with his answers.
Court Room H2: ICFAI, Dehradun v. Kirat P. Mehta School of Law
ICFAI
(Appellant) – Speaker 1 is not at all prepared. He is not well versed with the facts of the case. He is just reading what it is written in his memorial. He is constantly asking for pardon for not knowing the facts of the case thoroughly.
KPMSL
(RESPONDENT) : The respondent side is well prepared and judges look relatively convinced with the arguments advanced by the respondents.
Court Room C3: SLS,Hyderabad v. TNNNLS,Tiruchirappalli
SLS, HYderabad
Appellant speaker 1 started with an assertive stance but fumbled with his facts and couldn’t exactly prove a point and pushed all the responsibility of asserting the contentions on speaker 2. Whereas speaker 2 was well versed and stood there confidently despite the constantly grilling. He confidently put forth his contentions with no room for questions. The prayer was slightly flawed.
TNNLS, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI
The first speaker was well versed and quite confident in stating the contentions despite the constant grilling. But would falter whenever here and there due to the constant questioning. Whereas the second speaker was not well versed and couldn’t prove her point even after having ample time to do the same.
Court toom C5: NLIU, BHOPAL VS HNLU, RAIPUR.
NLIU
And it has started, speaker 1 from petitioners side starts off quite confidently and answered a couple of questions well
The second speaker faces a little grilling but the speaker comes out of it well and satisfies the judges to an extent with his answers
HNLU
Respondent side is continuing the bar set by appellant’s side quite well and speaker 1 spoke for 14 minutes with answering a couple of questions.The judges look a little convinced with the answers given by speaker 2 of the respondents. But the grilling continues.With very less time left with the appellants i.e. 36 seconds, wraps it up pretty well with 30 secs extension provided.
Court Room C6: Law College,Dehradun v. Indian Law Society ,Pune
Law College, Dehradun.
The first speaker from the appellant somehow managed to answer all the questions fired at her from the judges side, but speaker 2 seems to be little nervous after judges asked her to elaborate the meaning of contract.Speaker 2 from the appellant side went completely blank when asked whether they are indulged in malpractice.
Indian Law Society, Pune.
The first speaker from the Respondent side looks confident and answering to all the questions fired at her from the judges side.The speaker 2 from the Respondent side was asked to have some water by the judges as she was shivering and looking extremely nervous.
Court Room C-7: Maharishi Markhandeshwar, University,Ambala v. USLLS,GGSIPU
Maharishi Markhandeshwar
Appellants-
Speaker 1- It’s a confident start for the team. The bench has asked its first question and the same has been tackled by the counsel. Another question from the bench, and the counsel is not sure about the answer. Inquisitive judges have derailed the line of thought of the counsel. But the speaker seems to be a determined one.
Speaker 2- The speaker has started with her contentions. And the questioning from the bench is intermittent. The counsel is doing well for now. But the judges are trying to get more clarity from the counsel. The counsel has been forced to conclude the arguments due to paucity of time.
USLLS,GGSIPU
Respondents-
Speaker 1- It’s a confident start for the team. The speaker seems to be very confident with her preparation and gets the team off to a flyer. The judges are asking questions and the speaker is trying to satisfy the bench. The judges are rather inquisitive. And the speaker is doing a fine job. The speaker has concluded the arguments.
Speaker 2- After speaker 1, it has entirely come down to the last speaker of the round. The speaker has a good start and the judges are doing their normal job i.e., gauging the legal depth in the arguments of the counsel. The counsel has done her job and now all of it is left to the judges and their wisdom to mark the performances.
Court room C-8 :GNLU, GUJARAT VS UILS , PUNJAB UNIVERSITY,
GNLU
Appellants-
Speaker 1- Permission sought. The Court has granted the permission to skip the facts. The counsel has concluded the first contention briefly. And is not facing hard time on the lectern. An authority is cited and facts are asked by the Hon’ble bench and the counsel has, conveniently, pleaded ignorance. The counsel is having a rough time out there. The bench is relentless.
Speaker 2- It’s a wobbly start for the speaker but the speaker is trying to get over it. The judges have started to question and the counsel is trying to satisfy them but so far in vain. Even good speakers can run out of form. The barrage of questions has put the counsel in a fix. The counsel is in an unenviable position. The counsel continues with her arguments.
UILS
Respondents-
Speaker 1- The counsel has approached the dias and seems to be confident with her preparation. First query by the bench and the same has been dealt well by the counsel. The counsel has started to refer authorities to the bench and much cannot be said about the satisfaction threshold of the bench. The counsel is taking the bench through the facts of the matter and the counsel approaching peroration.
Respondents-
Speaker 2- The counsel has just invoked a doctrine and the same seems to have struck chord with the bench. The tenor of the speech is worthy of appreciation. The judges are relentless with their questioning but so far, so good. The counsel not attempting to dodge any query and giving her all yo satisfy the bench. The arguments are finished on a good note and the Prayer is presented.
Court Room H-5: IFIM, Bangalore v. NALSAR, HYDERABAD.
IFIM
Appellants:
The speaker 1 began confidently but seemed to lose the track soon after the judges started to throw question after questions at him. Though he was given permission to continue ahead, the latter part of the round witnessed more of hmm.., yes, okay, if(s) and but(s), with judges sparing not a minute to grill the speaker.
The jurisdiction still remained contended with the speaker 2. Choosing to move ahead with the arguments too did not fair well for the speaker. The questioning seems to know no bounds, speaker losing track every now and then. This made the speaker fumble during the prayer, judges leaving not a point to grill on.
The round went quite dizzy for the team. Hope this round helped them imbibe valuable points! All the best to team!
NALSAR
Respondents:
The bar of the team seems to be set high by the speaker 1. With command over the language, structure and good flow, the speaker is not leaving a stone unturned to spare the grilling. The speaker confidently stands confidently by his arguments while the grillings continues.
The speaker 2 seems to be low in confidence, caught up soon in the whirlpool of grilling. Conceding to the judges in the first contention, he continues ahead, only to face more grilling.
The team seems to have steered well out of the whirlpool of questions with their poise, demeanor,knowledge of law and clarity of facts.
Court Room C-9: Law Centre-II, Faculty of Law v. KIIT School Of Law.
Law Centre- II
Speaker 1 of the Appellant is handling the questions of the judges very well and is holding up well.The judges have put up very good questions and the speaker hasn’t been able to answer them confidently.In one instance when asked to cite a case, the researcher tried to help her with a chit but unfortunately the speaker wasn’t able to recall the facts of the case.
Speaker 2 while speaking with confidence isn’t able to give satisfactory answers to the judges who look on top in this battle of wits.
KIIT School Of Law
Respondent Speaker 1 is well versed with the facts and her confidence is visible.
Speaker 2 isn’t able to answer the questions satisfactorily and looks nervous.
With 2 well matched teams pitted against each other, we saw a glorious battle of wits and the Respondents thanks to Speaker 1 didn’t crumble under pressure and looked the better team.
Court Room C-10: NLUJAA v. LLOYD LAW COLLEGE.
NLUJAA
Appellants-
After starting fairly confidently, the first speaker stumbled after being bombarded with questions by judges. The judges are grilling ruthlessly. Speaker 1 made a blunder by saying that only 4 writs are there in the Constitution.
Speaker 2 started confidently but the judges are ruthless. He is consciously making the same mistakes again. It is seems that there are not even able to maintain there appeal in the Supreme Court.
Respondants-
Both the speakers were good enough. The judges seemed to be quite satisfied with the arguments.
But it could be learned from the 2nd speaker’s speech that you should definitely not plead ignorance many times in your speech.
LLOYD
Respondants-
Both the speakers were good enough. The judges seemed to be quite satisfied with the arguments.
But it could be learned from the 2nd speaker’s speech that you should definitely not plead ignorance many times in your speech.
Court Room C-12: Students Of University Of Law v. Singhad Law School.
(Appellant)- The first speaker though not confident enough, was able to put forth his contentions clearly while the 2nd one could not carry on with the same and seemed unclear and was unable to convince.
Respondents on the other hand were able to grab a clear and swift victory with confident speakers and perspicuous speech.
Court Room A-3: Institute Of Law, Nirma University v. SLS, Noida
Nirma University
(Petitioner) – The first speaker, started off pretty confidently, and continued with same confidence throughout the speech but faltered at the end after facing few stern questions from the judges.
The second speaker, started off confidently and clearly put his contentions. He couldn’t answer some of the questions thrown at him and tried to dodge them. The speaker couldn’t clearly state the reasoning for his contentions.
SLS, NOIDA.
(Respondents) – The first speaker was pretty clear with her contentions and she was able to answer the questions thrown by judges. But the second speaker lacked confidence from the beginning and fumbled as soon as he faced the first question, he falters again and again and seems not too well versed with the facts.
COURT ROOM A-6:Faculty of Law , Aligarh University v. Amity Law School, Noida.
It was a one sided affair with the Appellants facing the questions with confidence and giving apt answers. Appellants stood to the task and performed very well especially the second speaker who took away the match from the Respondents. It was a weak display from the side of the Respondents as they were not able to reply to the catena of questions and pleaded ignorance now and then. Both the speakers were not able to convince the judges.
Court room C-1: Geeta Institute Of Law v. AILS, Mohali.
GRILLLLLLEDDD on law, facts, IQ and on manyyy things. Round which went on for more than 100 minutes proved to be a tough ask for both the teams. Respondents still looked confident but again the bench had an upper hand..
Court room C-2: NUALS , Kochi,v. Teerthanker Mahaveer College Of Law and Legal Studies.
NUALS
It’s round 2 for RG02, the appealing team now and their confidence is shaking due to the tough questioning line of the judges. However, they are holding their own. The respondents on the other hand look visibly terrified of their upcoming doom.
Teerthanker Mahaveer College Of Law and Legal Studies
There seems to be some kind of confusion with regards to the sections of the statute cited by the Speaker 1 of the Respondents – this has given an edge to the judges to school them with regards to the act. Now it’s the judges talking and speakers doing the listening. Let’s see if speaker 2 will be able to redeem their defense.
Speaker 2 stands mute halfway into the time. The questions of the judges are lost on the speaker. Voice shaking, the speaker tries to gain back the stead but lack of preparation, perhaps, holds back.
Court room H-1 MNLU ,Mumbai V. Amity University Of Law,MP.
MNLU
The 1st Speaker from the appellants is entirely doomed with the questions from the judges who don’t seem to agree with his arguments at all.
The second speaker was already traumatised with the expression of the judge hence started off confused. He kept contradicting the statement of his fellow speaker.
AMITY UNIVERSITY OF LAW.
The 1st speaker from the respondents seems to be calm, confident and well versed with the facts of the case.
Second speaker is extremely slow and boring. Not clear with what she is talking. Spoke about the abuse of dominance but was not clear under what circumstances she uttered those words and kept saying “SIR I APOLOGISE” or “SORRY I DON’T KNOW”. At one point of time it was just the judge asking question followed by “PROCEED” with disappointment. Ending the session while Putting us all to sleep…..
Court room C-4 Jitendra Chauhan College Of Law v. Government Mohindra College, Patiala.
It was a one sided affair where Appelants were able to satisfy the judges with their answers.
Respondents, on the other hand, were neither well versed with the facts nor did they cite any authority wile pleading
Court room C-8 UILS,Punjab University v. School Of Law, SASTRA.
UILS
Appellants-
Speaker 1- The speaker is loud and confident and so is one of the judges. The questions from the bench haven’t really affected the speaker’s pace. The judges are making penetrating queries and the same are being tackled by the speaker. The usage of time is apposite. We have reached the summation.
Speaker 2- The speaker has picked up from where the first speaker had left. The counsel is welcomed with a query from the bench and the same has been answered by the counsel. The bench seems satisfied. The counsel has used an analogy of giving the reins of a horse to somebody who has not ridden a horse before and the same has been taken well by the bench.
School Of Law, SASTRA
Respondents-
Speaker 1- The counsel has given a stable start to the team. The judges have allowed the speaker to speak for first 2 minutes and now the judges have started to make queries. The speaker is dealing with the queries and the same has got the bench even more inquisitive. The counsel is going through a rough phase.The conclusion is nearing.
Speaker 2- The counsel has taken the responsibility and the judges have also started asking questions for the sake of clarity. Some help from the co-counsel has been accepted by the counsel. The counsel is doing a fine job as of now. The arguments are being concluded.
Court Room H-5: NALSAR ,Hyderabad v. School of Excellence in Law,Chennai.
NALSAR
Appellants:
The speakers exemplify good oratory skills, dodging the questions thrown at them with facts and knowledge of law. Clarity of thoughts help in smooth sailing however, turbulence occurs with further grilling. Not to forget the contribution of the researcher, the team’s saviour, managing chits just when needed. The speaker 1 manages to sail through irrespective, satisfying the judges by answering their questions, managing his time well. However, speaker 2 runs out of the time, asked to summarise another contention in 30 seconds.
The team did fair well in the previous round. Hope their patience, poise and demeanor helps them in saving their sinking boat.
School Of Excellence in Law
The respondent’s speaker begins confidently, showing clarity of through the arguments. However, the grilling gets her to fumble, judges to ultimately check the time left. The second speaker too faced problems tackling the grilling, ultimately to have left without the prayer recitation and contentions cut short due to paucity of time. All the best to the team!
Court Room C-9 :KIIT School Of Law v. Law Centre II , Delhi University of Law
KIIT School Of Law
Speaker 1 of the Appellant is handling the questions of the judges very well and is holding up well.
The judges have put up very good questions and the speaker hasn’t been able to answer them confidently.In one instance when asked to cite a case, the researcher tried to help her with a chit but unfortunately the speaker wasn’t able to recall the facts of the case.
Speaker 2 while speaking with confidence isn’t able to give satisfactory answers to the judges who look on top in this battle of wits.
Court Room C-10 :LLOYD Law College v Students Of University School Of Law
It’s an all girl team. But the team certainly could not substantiate the saying: “Beauty with brain”. None of the speakers were able to answer even the simplest questions of the judges.
The judges are on the roll. It looks like judges are speaking more than the speakers.
7:00 p.m: RESULTS OF THE PRELIMINARY ROUNDS ARE IN:
After a gruesome day of presenting their arguments, the teams finally set in the seminar hall for the results. 8 out of the 63 participating teams moved ahead. The esteemed Vice Chancellor Prof (Dr.)Paramjit S. Jaswal offered words of encouragement to the eliminated teams and invigorated them to do well in their future endeavours.
The Qualified teams are:
NUALS,KOCHI
MNLU,MUMBAI
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD
KIIT SCHOOL OF LAW
GLC ,MUMBAI
SINGHAD LAW COLLEGE, PUNE
FACULTY OF LAW ,JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA
NLSIU,BANGALORE
7:15 p.m:QUARTER-FINALS BEGIN:
The 8 teams moving ahead are given no time to revel their winnings as the quarter-finals begin as soon as the results are declared.They are allotted their court rooms where they will contend to enter the semi-finals.Be tuned in as the qualified teams have proved their worth by beating 55 other astute teams and have an uphill battle to face.
7:44 p.m: SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD v. SINGHAD LAW COLLEGE, PUNE
The tension runs high in the court room as the teams wait for the judges to arrive.
Appellants:
As the speaker states the facts, the judges intently looks at him, waiting to swirl him in the whirlpool of questions. As he begins, he is to face the hurdle of establishing jurisdiction. The time runs and waits for none, he is yet to establish jurisdiction with 3 minutes left for his slot. He begins with the merits in the last few minutes. With every 2 minutes he is granted, grilling gets intensive with speaker falling deeper into the pit of questions.
The second speaker fairs well, dodging the questions with no sign of stress. However, not being able to answer the queries between different types of cartels, the room is heating up with arguments from both the bench and the counsel. Caught up, counsel ultimately seeks extension for 5 mins, loosing various other points to be contending in previous issue to move ahead with another one. Quarters don’t seem to be much in favor of the team with loss of contending a whole new issue due to no more extension.
Respondents:
The speaker soon gets caught up in the questions after questions thrown at him by both the judges regarding jurisdiction. The judges leave no scope for the teams to bluff since all authorities, books and acts are referred continuously as the speaker quotes them all. The disagreement runs high in the court room as the judges throw questions after questions, barely letting the speaker utter words not being differed on. The speaker ends his slot leaving the judges high in disagreement.
With hope in the eyes of the researcher, second speaker begins. However, she too soon gets caught up in the grilling, unable to articulate and answer the questions satisfactorily. Amidst the grilling, speaker too starts raising questions to bench! In the extended minutes, the speaker is finally able to gain momentum only for her to face more grilling, on each point, every aspect. The disagreement continues to run high, judges to warn the counsel to ‘not destroy the case’!
Quarters time doesn’t seem to be in favor of both the teams, both leaving behind various points to contend on. The neck to neck competition leaves the teams in a nail biting situation while calculating their chances for the next round!
8:21 p.m: MNLU, MUMBAI V. FACULTY OF LAW, JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA.
MNLU
Speaker 1
As soon as the speaker 1 started with the briefing of facts, judges said him to move to the relevant arguments he had. Judges are well versed with the facts and the relevant law. They have started putting questions in a very constructive manner. The speaker is doing well with the arguments. Speaker is trying to explain out every possible significant fact. The speaker tried to play with the facts and providing some presumptions. Presumptions denied, authorities demanded. Judges seems to know the particular law which is the essence of the issue. Speaker is failing to satisfy the judges.
Speaker 2
With the required permissions second speaker started presenting his arguments on particular issues and significant laws. Judges taking the confident stance with their questions. Explaining the cases with the flair speech, the speaker doesn’t seem to be stoppable. Judges made the strike of question based on interpretation of facts. Now speaker trying to escape the question with the best articulation he can put before the hon’ble bench. Researcher helping the speakers with explaination being provided through passing of slips. Time’s up. He still haven’t dealt with his one issue. Limited time for final question has been given. Speaker’s flow has been breached. Speaker pleads ignorance leaving judges unsatisfied.
FACULTY OF LAW, JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA
Speaker 1
Speaker started with the relevant facts but the very well versed judges caught him over the interpretation of same facts. The questions on settled law went unanswered. The level of judging is at its best for quarter-finals. The lack of knowledge of very basics of the Constitution of India making it very difficult for the speaker to proceed. Speaker concluded with unsatisfying arguments
Speaker 2
With a very nervous tone of voice but speedily, the speaker proceeded with his arguments. The speaker is stopping to understand well the interpretation of facts as provided by judges. Speaker is unable to assist the court with the right reasoning that is required.
8:28 p.m:GLC ,MUMBAI v KIIT SCHOOL OF LAW
(Respondent)
The first speaker starts off strong and confident. The efficiency of answering as well as dodging questions with emotional arguments didn’t do so well for speaker one. The first speaker was extremely cautious of finishing the arguments in the given time frame but towards the end the strict adherence to the time limit led to hasty speech and interrupting the judges before they could complete. Seems like not all good virtues turn up so well. The first speaker started off extremely strong but failed to convince and didn’t seal the deal so well. The second speaker took over with a zen like expression with the responsibility of saving the case. Patience might not have been the best of the virtues for speaker one but the second speaker did the balancing act for the two speakers. The second Speaker’s ambit of interpreting the competition law seemed way to wide. The limits widened so much that they could no longer be applied to competition law alone. Towards the end the speaker two got hold of a lot of arguments and satisfied the judges about a few but the time paucity left few arguments untouched or unsettled.
8:54 p.m: NUALS,KOCHI v NLSIU,BANGALORE
They say there’s a silence before a storm. Although not a storm but strong winds of questions were definitely blowing in C1 after 10 minutes silence from the bench.
Appellants began on a cool & a calm note. Proper structure of the issues was the key note in their argument. They were thoroughly grilled by the bench particularly on the issue of access to multiple forums.
Respondents did hold their position in the beginning but were constantly obstructed by bench’s erudite questions which brought smile on the faces present in the court.
Overall it was a round which involved soft voices with witty questions & answers.
9:22 p.m:RESULTS OF THE QUARTER FINALS ARE IN:
After another series of cumbersome questioning and answering the results of the quarter final rounds are in.
The teams which proceed to the semi finals are:
NUALS,KOCHI
MNLU,MUMBAI
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD
KIIT SCHOOL OF LAW
9:45 p.m.SEMI-FINALS ROUND COMMENCES
The steadfast teams continue to the next round as they burn the midnight oil and are yet again prepared to face not just the opponents but also the erudite judges who are not going to be sympathetic towards the sapped participants.
10:26 p.m:NUALS,KOCHI v. MNLU,MUMBAI.
NUALS
Appellants:
High in excitement and anxiety, the team begins with the submissions to the bench. 2 minutes into the rounds and the bench starts grilling, disrupting flow of the arguments. The speaker continues on a high note, with reflection of no tiredness from the previous rounds. The team sits high in tension as the speaker dodges grilling, fidgeting with every pause speaker takes. Speaker safely sails through contention one, however, 3 seconds into another one and grilling begins. Not being able to contend about joint venture, the trio in the bench refuse for further argument on the same, speaker completing his part well in time.
The second speaker fumbles in the beginning as he begins due to unexpected grillings within few seconds of him beginning his contention. The room witnesses high tension with nail biting, fidgeting, chit passing and passionate speech of the speaker. The speaker is cautioned to not excuse answering a question due to ‘moot prop being silent’ only for the co-judge to enlighten the counsel regarding answer being mentioned in moot prop. The opposing team smiles through the grilling, confident to take on them. The second speaker gets a warning for the tone, asked to take seat for being heated up and offending the bench. The speaker consequently apologizes.
Citing the authorities well and providing proof for the same as well, the team to an extent has been able to satisfy the Lordships with their submissions, though last minutes witnessed brewing heat between the counsel and the bench. The grilling does not end till the last minute, leaving the team curious to retrospect their performance.
MNLU
Respondents:
The rounds begin on a lighter note, moving past the heated argument with the previous counsel. Minutes into the arguments, the bench starts grilling the speaker, though she maintains her structure of the arguments and flow. Article 27(1) corrected to 27(g), the bench lets no fact go wrong, interpreted wrong or be bluffed, checking all intricacies of the submissions. The speaker sails ahead, though faces turbulence, is able to manage the pool of questions, answering confidently, though not to the satisfaction of the judges. The grilling makes the counsel lag, only to wrap up remaining issue in a minute.
The second speaker is straight away asked to continue answers the previous speaker left midway. Maintaining a calm demeanor, she welcomes all the questions and handles them. However, she soon pauses, unable to articulate multiple questions thrown at her at once. However, she manages to move past them, having them dodged. She gains momentum as the time elapses, remaining clear in her though process and facts. As the time elapses, speaker fastens her speech until a judge points her out to listen carefully and answer accordingly.
Overall, there has been a display of amazing competition between both the teams. All the best to both!!
RESULTS OF THE SEMI FINAL ROUNDS ARE IN:
After a gruelling day which went on till late into the night, the results of the semi finals are in , the teams nervously wait for their results.Mixed expressions of pride and uneasiness can be seen as only 2 of the 4 teams will be making it to battle it out for the much coveted winning prize of Rs 35,000 ,an alluring trophy and a year round membership of the legal research database,SCC online.The results are called in and the winning teams are
MNLU,MUMBAI
and
KIIT SCHOOL OF LAW.
10:00 a.m. THE MUCH AWAITED FINALS BEGIN: MNLU,MUMBAI V. KIIT SCHOOL OF LAW
Everyone has set in the lavish moot court hall which is set to host the finals of the 7TH RGNUL National Moot Court Competition.The Judges have arrived.The bench for the finals comprises of Dr. Bidyadhar Majhi, Director (Law division), Competition Commission of India,Mr. Vijay Agarwal, Managing Partner, Advaita Legal,Prof, Dr. Anand Pawar,Professor Of Law at RGNUL.
MNLU, MUMBAI.
Speaker 1 for the appellants has begun really well and the judges seem satisfied.Now that was a twist that no one saw coming!
The judges are extremely well versed with the facts of the case and the written submissions of both the parties. They were just waiting for the right moment to bombard the questions. 1, 2, 3, 4,…..A number of questions have been tabled by the honorable judges and the speaker seems a bit worried, but not for long.The team from the appellants stated of strong and confident and quite successfully convinced the judges. The appellant team speakers are proficient at citing authorities and referring to the same.
While weighing the scales the second speaker definitely had an upper hand over the first.The second speaker was more patient and well versed and definitely better under pressure.
That went really well…….A stage is set for an enthralling finale.
KIIT SCHOOL OF LAW
Respondents
The first speaker from the respondent read the memorial well but seemed to incur troubles while answering questions otherwise.A perfect example of how you can stop someone from asking questions by beating around the bush
Sure not the best of days for first speaker.
Although, the first speaker seemed calm under pressure.
Carrying forward the legacy of the first speaker the second speaker seemed to have been extremely good at “reading” the memorial.Legal knowledge clearly was not an area of strength for the second speaker.
However, relying on economics and business logic,the Speaker went on for an uninterrupted 3 minutes, the 2nd speaker was able to substantiate his argument satisfactorily to the judges.
The final arguments made by the respondents again brought the competition within their reach. This is going to be really close guys.
12:30 p.m. Finally, Time for the Closing Ceremony.
The teams sit anxious after nail-biting competition in the finals.
The participants await the results while the trophies are set in the room.
The esteemed guests are welcomed by floral greeting by the members of MCC soon to be followed by report of the competition by MCC convenor.
The teams sit gleaming the trophies while the esteemed guests and the Vice Chancellor address the gathering.
The extremely reputed panel of guests comprising he CCI director, senior attorney, P&H High court judge, Vice Chancellor and Mr. Anand Pawar, faculty of law, Rgnul.
One member of each team collects the certificate, the hall echoing with claps!
THE FINAL RESULTS ARE IN:
The winner of this year’s National Moot Court Competition winning an elegant trophy and a cool Rs 35,000 cash prize is
KIIT SCHOOL OF LAW,
MNLU, MUMBAI was declared as the Runners-up winning 30,000 as prize money
The Other Results for the best speaker, best researcher and best memorial are as follows
Best researcher: Karan Damania, Christ School of Law(deemed to be University) (RS 10,000)
Best speaker: Nikitha Paulson, NUALS, Kochi (RS 10,000)
Best memorial: UPES, Dehradun (RS 15,000)
