UPES School of Law has been successfully organizing the UPES Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International ‘Energy Law’ Moot Court Competition with an aim of creating opportunities for learning and development of jurisprudence on emerging trends in Energy Law by budding professionals by developing cutting-edge skills in research, writing, and advocacy. The competition has sought to preserve and advance the legacy of Dr. Paras Diwan, an eminent Indian jurist and a stalwart in the field of law. Since its inception in 2011, the competition has grown by leaps and bounds and went international in 2015 and has furthered the banner of Energy Laws throughout the world. The competition sees participation from top law schools of India and abroad and is considered one of the most coveted moots of the country. In the light of the pandemic, the 12th edition will be held virtually this year. The platform for the competition is via virtual conference.
There are 16 participating teams from some of the most prominent law schools across the country to be judged by legal professionals and experts in the field of Energy Law and international commercial arbitration.
We wish the participants luck and hope that you all ace it!
DAY 1 : 15 APRIL 2022
Preliminary Round I has begun
Courtroom 1 (TC 1 v TC 9)
The moderator Ms. Jagriti Roy commenced the session with the introduction of the judges, Ms. Jimisha Dalal and Mr. Aditya Barthwal. The speakers from both the sides were enthusiastic. The Claimants dextrously answered the questions during their submissions. Although, there was a question which the speaker was stuck upon, but still the judges seemed satisfied with his arguments. The respondent speakers were fluent with their contentions and were submitting flawlessly, until the Judges caught a gap in the facts which led to immense questioning from them. The speaker still continued to answer the judges. The round was concluded with the feedback by the judges to both the teams.
Courtroom 2 (TC 2 v TC 10)
The moderator Mr. Arnab Goswami began the session with the introduction of the Judges, Ms. Roshni Shrivastava & Mr. Anurag Mitra. The oralist of Team 10 challenges the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal due to presence of an energy tribunal under a statute. The judges seemed unsatisfied with his arguments. Judges raised various questions on fundamental breach of Article of 25 of CISG. After a gruelling round of tough questions by the erudite panels, intense rebuttals were put forward from each side.
Courtroom 3 (TC 3 v TC 11)
The moderator Mr. Akash Nair commenced the session with the introduction of the judges, Mr. Akshay Sharma and Mr. Kushal Juneja. The session begins with the brief facts and certain clarifications on the factual matrix by the judges. The counsel began their submissions with a brief of facts to acquaint the bench with the particulars of the context within which the case is to be argued. The speaker then went on to systematically list out the issues to be argued by the counsel and the co-counsel. The Counsel form both sides addressed the learned bench’s questions aptly, and the court codes of conduct were on full display throughout the argumentation.
Courtroom 4 (TC 4 v TC 12)
The moderator Ms. Harsimran Batra commenced the session with the introduction of the Judges, Mr. Ankit Singh and Mr. Aditya Sethi. The respondents were very well versed with their arguments and gave a tough competition by thoroughly putting out their arguments. The Judges kept bringing the speaker back to the facts of the moot proposition and tried to extract a logical nexus to the law that the speaker is highlighting. After a gruelling round of tough questions by the erudite panels, intense rebuttals were put forward from each side. After rebuttal, the judges also praised both sides for their performance.
Courtroom 5 (TC 5 v TC 14)
The moderator Mr. Nishant Gopan commenced the session with the introduction of the judges, Mr. Daman Popli and Mr. Satatya Anand. The speaker from the respondent side began by highlighting the factual matrix supporting their case. Speaker 2 from the respondent discussed the term preponderant and the value of the sale of goods. The judges questioned the speakers ruthlessly in an attempt to make them admit contrary to their case.
Courtroom 6 (TC 6 v TC 13)
The moderator Ms. Deewanshi Agrawal commenced the session with the introduction of the judges, Ms. Shruti Mandhotra and Mr. Kshitij Kalra. The respondent side speakers started rousingly. Interesting arguments were made on the radioactive nature of the goods. The claimant opened their argument by mentioning the energy tribunal, which was followed by the rest of the arguments. The judges then inquired about the issues and opt-in and opt-out nature of the CISG. All things considered, the first speaker seemed very confident and was able to satisfy the Bench with their arguments.
Courtroom 7 (TC 7 v TC 15)
The moderator Mr. Vishal Khatri started the session with the introduction of Judges, Mr. Pramod Panwar and Mr. Nikhil Kumar. The respondents were very well versed with their arguments and gave a tough competition by thoroughly putting out their arguments. The Claimants dextrously answered the questions during their submissions. Although, there was a question which the speaker was stuck upon, but still the judges seemed satisfied with his arguments. The respondent speakers were fluent with their contentions and were submitting flawlessly, until the Judges caught a gap in the facts which led to immense questioning from them. The speaker still continued to answer the judges. The round was concluded with the feedback by the judges to both the teams.
Preliminary Round II has begun
Courtroom 1 (TC 15 v TC 4)
The moderator Ms. Jagriti Roy commenced the session with the introduction of the judges, Ms. Jimisha Dalal and Mr. Aditya Barthwal. First counsel from the respondent’ side lays down the structure of her arguments in a very graceful manner which exudes confidence. The judges seem impressed now with the answers given by the counsel and acknowledged the presented grounds. The first counsel laid down his grounds in a very graceful manner and he seems assured with what he is presenting. Claimants pointed out the same due diligence ground which respondents failed to prove in their arguments when asked by one of the judges. This indicated active listening on the part of claimants.
Courtroom 2 (TC 14 v TC 3)
The moderator Mr. Arnab Goswami began the session with the introduction of the Judges, Ms. Roshni Shrivastava & Mr. Anurag Mitra. The counsel from the respondent has taken charge of the floor and the judges have been giving out positive vibes too as they can be seen nodding their heads in approval of the arguments. Now, the counsel from the claimant side starts making the submission however The counsel does not seem to understand the questions laid by the arbitrator leading to an unsatisfied response. The arbitrator has been leading the counsel with many questions and the counsel seems baffled by the questions raised.
Courtroom 3 (TC 13 v TC 02)
The moderator Mr. Akash Nair commenced the session with the introduction of the judges, Mr. Akshay Sharma and Mr. Kushal Juneja. The Speaker and the Bench are engaging on a particularly contentious point again. But the Speaker’s time is running out and the Bench continues to be dissatisfied, throwing one after another complicated question and clarification at her. The Bench is referring to the documents. They direct the Speaker to refer to a particular section. Both the Bench and the Speaker continues having disagreements on.
Courtroom 4 (TC 12 v TC 1)
The moderator Ms. Harsimran Batra commenced the session with the introduction of the Judges, Mr. Ankit Singh and Mr. Aditya Sethi. The oral rounds have begun. The first speaker from respondent appears to be a little flustered with the crisp instructions of the Bench. However, she composed herself and she handled the situation wonderfully. he Bench accuses the Speaker of not having mentioned the requisite information in their contract with the respondents. The Speaker, not surprisingly, directed the Bench yet again to where the relevant information has been mentioned.
Courtroom 5 (TC 11 v TC 7)
The moderator Mr. Nishant Gopan commenced the session with the introduction of the judges, Mr. Daman Popli and Mr. Satatya Anand. The counsel of the respondent continues to refer to their memorial for the efficiency of the court and to the relief of the bench. Despite an extension of time, the counsel struggles with the specific questions posed about the judgements cited. The bench states that the counsel’s interpretation and the tribunal’s interpretation of the judgement is starkly different.
Courtroom 6 (TC 10 v TC 6)
The moderator Ms. Deewanshi Agrawal commenced the session with the introduction of the judges, Ms. Shruti Mandhotra and Mr. Kshitij Kalra. The judges begins their questioning the counsel about the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. he counsel is trying her best to put forth their best arguments and satisfy the judges of their legal backing. A series of questions follow and the counsel manages to answer them, but the judges do not seem very impressed. The rounds ended successfully with both the teams making their submissions with utmost brevity and confidence.
Courtroom 7 (TC 9 v TC 5)
The moderator Mr. Vishal Khatri started the session with the introduction of Judges, Mr. Pramod Panwar and Mr. Nikhil Kumar. The speaker of the respondent expresses a clear disagreement with the Judge’s understanding of the case. However, their explanation satisfies the Judge and they seem convinced with the response of the counsel. The judge asks a complicated question regarding the foreseeability of change in law by Nipponia Government. The speaker answered it satisfactorily.
Preliminary Rounds were concluded
The results of preliminary rounds and the qualifying teams are as follows :
TC 15
TC 12
TC 02
TC 01
TC 09
TC 14
TC 11
TC 05
We heartily congratulate all the teams and wish them all the best for the Quarterfinals. These teams will give a cut-throat competition to secure a spot in Semi-Finals.
DAY 2 : 16 APRIL 2022
9 : 30 AM : A case briefing session was conducted for the judges who will be judging Quarter final rounds.
Quarter Final Rounds has begun
10: 40 AM : With slight Delay, the Quarter Final kicked off with very zeal & the learned panel once again started with their gruelling session & was very eclectic about the arguments that were being made. In toto, it was found very hard for the counsel to face off the tricky question put up by the panel. But the teams were able to stand once again on their feet in the battle of rebuttals.
The participants in their advanced round have had to face a tough and thorough bench that asks compelling questions but they prevailed in their knowledge and confidence to satisfactorily argue before the judges. May the best advance to the semi-finals!
Quarter Final Rounds were concluded
1 : 15 PM : The results of quarter final rounds and the qualifying teams are as follows :
TC 12
TC 01
TC 15
TC 02
We heartily congratulate all the teams and wish them all the best for the Semi-Finals. These teams will give a cut-throat competition to secure a spot in the Finals.
1: 30 PM : A case briefing session was conducted for the judges who will be judging Quarter final rounds.
Semi Final Rounds has begun
Courtroom Number 1 ( TC 2 v TC 12)
The judges of this round are Ankit Yadav, Prateek Mishra and Peace Adeleye. The Counsel clearly and concisely lays before the panel arguments for the nature of the arbitration agreement between the parties and the precedence of their agreement over lex arbitri. The counsels from both the sides. seems to be thoroughly prepared which is evident from his presentation of various case laws and understanding of relevant jurisprudence.
Courtroom Number 2 ( TC 1 v TC 15)
The judges for this round are Arjun Natarajan, Nalini Mishra and Berk Tuzuner. The judges seem dissatisfied with the Counsel’s response and the Counsel responds by using case laws to substantiate. Heat intensifies upon the Counsel! The line of questioning posed by the judges seems to have unnerved the speaker as they stutter through some of their submissions. The Counsel gets back on track confidently with a compelling case law with similar circumstances.
Semi Final Rounds were concluded
The much awaited results of the semi-finals were declared. We would like to congratulate the teams qualified for the Finals & We would like to express a gratitude to all the other participants for their hard work & appreciate them for taking part in this competition.
Teams who qualified for Finals are:
TC 12 (Claimant) v TC 1 (Respondent)
DAY 3 : 17 APRIL 2022
The moment is finally here, the moment we have all been waiting for. Welcome to the finals of the 12th UPES – Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International ‘Energy Law’ Moot Court Competition, 2022. n a few hours’ time, we will get to know who goes home with the trophy. This is the stage they all wanted to argue at, in the finals and before the very best of judges. The judges are here, the participants are here.
The round was judged by Dr. Ajar Rab (Partner, Rab & Rab Associates LLP) , Ish Jain ( Senior Partner, Regius Legal LLP) & Dr. Mayank Mishra (Assistant Professor of Law at University of petroleum & Energy Studies, Dehradun)
Final Round has begun
The counsel began their submissions with a brief of facts to acquaint the bench with the particulars of the context within which the case is to be argued. The speaker then went on to systematically list out the issues to be argued by the counsel and the co-counsel.The Counsel form both sides addressed the learned bench’s questions adeptly, and the court codes of conduct were on full display throughout the argumentation.
Both sides have concluded with their arguments, now the panel has to make a decision.
Final Round concludes
The judges have been sent to their discussion room for deliberation and the participants are patiently waiting for the result.
Result
The pendulum of nervousness hangs over the final teams, as results are soon gone to be declared. The UPES Moot Court Association is proud to announce the winner of 12th Dr. Paras Diwan Memorial International ‘Energy Law’ Moot Court Competition, 2022
Award List
Winner – TC 1 – National Law University, Jodhpur
Speaker 1 – Krishangee Parikh
Speaker 2 – Ayushi Sareen
Researcher – Piyush Senapati
Runners up – TC 12 – Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab
Speaker 1 – Swagat Ahuja
Speaker 2 – Dhruv Bhatia
Researcher – Kashish Thakur
Best Speaker – TC 12 – Dhruv Bhatia
Best Memorial – TC 4 – National Law University, Odisha
Best International Team – TC 5 – University of Dhaka