About the Competition
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow is hosting the inaugural edition of its flagship arbitration moot, i.e., RMLNLU – Kochhar & Co. Arbitration Moot Court Competition, 2023. This moot is being organised in association with Kochhar & Co. as the Title Sponsor and IAMC, Hyderabad as the Exclusive Institutional Partner. PSL Advocates & Solicitors and Sarvada Legal are the Friends of the Moot. The student community of National Law University, Lucknow has put in days of focused effort to organise this moot court competition which acts as the University’s contribution to the mooting fraternity of National Law Universities. It is very encouraging to see the participation increase consistently with every passing year. This year will see participation from 27 teams across the country. The teams vie for 4 categories of awards – Winners with a prize money of INR 50,000 & Internship slots at Kochhar & Co., Runners Up with INR 40,000 & Internship slots at IAMC, Hyderabad, Best Speaker and Best Memorial with INR 30,000 each & internship slots at Sarvada Legal and PSL Advocates & Solicitors respectively.
This year’s Moot problem has been drafted by Mr. Jawad A. J. and Advocate Tariq Khan. Mr. Jawad A.J. is working as a Global Faculty for ADR ODR International, UK and is an accredited Digital Dispute Resolution Specialist with DDRS. Advocate Tariq Khan is the Registrar of the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (IAMC), Hyderabad. The Moot Court Competition has come to fruition through the untiring support and dedication of the University’s Moot Court Committee (MCC) headed by Joint Convenors, Kashish Jain and Shravani Nag Lanka of the Batch of 2023.
Day 1 – Registration and The Opening Ceremony
12:00 PM: The registrations for the inaugural edition of the flagship arbitration moot, i.e., RMLNLU – Kochhar & Co. Arbitration Moot Court Competition, 2023 have begun. With great enthusiasm, all the teams submitted their compendiums and memorials and procured their goodie bags to mark the start of the event.
2:00 PM: After a hectic registration process the teams are now looking forward to enjoying scrumptious meals.
3:30 PM: The inaugural ceremony of the Competition was graced by the benign presence of Dr. A.P. Singh, the Head of Department of Legal Studies of the University, Dr. Visalakshi Vegesna, the Chairperson of the Moot Court Committee and Dr. Prasenjit Kundu, the Faculty Coordinator of the Moot Court Committee.
3:45 PM: The Chairperson of the Moot Court Committee addressed the gathering, boosting the morale of all the participants. She talked about the importance of Moot Court Competitions in not only developing legal acumen but also being an important knowledge asset for law students. She thanked all the participants, sponsors, faculty members and declared the competition open.
EBC Session
4:00 PM: Mr. Rajesh Raina, Deputy Manager Training, Eastern Book Company addressed the gathering and held an interactive session about how to access and use the SCC Online database. He also discussed the nuances of mooting, and its importance in law schools.
Match Ups
5:00 PM: The participants were briefed and after a short while the Match-ups were released post which Memorials were exchanged. The palpability in the room was conspicuous, the participants left the room with the mounting nervousness of presenting a case at court tomorrow.
Day 2 – Preliminary Rounds and Quarter Final Rounds
Judges Briefing
10:00 AM: The judges inclusive of experienced senior advocates, partners and associates at reputed law firms, joined the meeting to be briefed on the moot proposition, marking scheme and other technical details. Mr. Jawad A.J, the problem drafter delivered an insightful speech explaining the issues centered around the Moot Proposition.
10:30 AM: A question and answer session was taken by the problem drafter addressing the issues related to the Moot Proposition.
Round 1 – 11:00 AM – 12:30 PM
Court Room 1: NLU Odisha was up against USLLS. The counsels were thoroughly questioned by the judges to extract the most coherent arguments. The participants put up a brave face as they answered the questions to the best of their ability in order to put forth their most convincing arguments. The judge focused on various peculiarities of the proposition that prompted the participants to come up with several interesting arguments.
Court Room 2: Symbiosis Law college Pune was up against SLS Hyderabad. The participants presented articulate arguments that convinced the judges as to their assertions, backed by the proper authority of law. The judges engaged in questioning regarding authorities and backing of international laws, which was dealt with confidence by the counsels. The judges also engaged in procedural questioning. The judges focused on various peculiarities of arbitration law and principles that prompted the participants to come up with several interesting arguments. The round came to an end with engaging rebuttals.
Court Room 5: NLU Jodhpur had a challenging round against IILM University. The participants presented their arguments in a well structured manner. The judges grilled the counsels in order to extract the most cogent arguments. The judges primarily focused on the legal backing of the arguments with relevant case laws and precedents. The participants answered the questions articulately. Both counsels were asked to submit their prayers following their arguments. The participants gained invaluable experience in the art of answering the queries of the judges with precision and brevity.
Court Room 8: HPNLU Shimla was up against NLU Delhi. The participants presented articulate arguments in an attempt to solidify their contention. The participants were questioned by the judges in great detail. The participants gave well thought out answers that convinced the judges as to their assertions, backed by the proper authority of law. Both the teams were equally matched in research and it all came down to the skills of oral presentation.
Court Room 10: Christ Bangalore was up against CNLU Patna. The participants presented articulate arguments, backed by the proper authority of law. The judges engaged in some grilling questioning, which were answered by the participants to the best of their ability and the judges were thus, thoroughly impressed. Both the teams engaged in prompt rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side. They equally matched in research and it all came down to the skills of oral presentation. After an intriguing set of arguments by all of the teams, we have now arrived at the end of the first session of the Prelims.
Preliminary Round 2 – 12:30 PM – 2:00 PM
Court Room 3: MNLU Mumbai faced off against NLU Odisha in a competitive round. The judges engaged in constant questioning, which was dealt with confidence by the counsels. The counsels did their utmost to persuade the judges that their arguments were legally sound, otherwise they would have been reduced to mere conjecture. It was a battle between two premier law schools both equally placed in their research which ultimately came down to who could present their set of arguments in a more cogent and coherent manner.
Court Room 4: UPES were up against DBRANLU Jabalpur. Before proceeding to the arguments, the judges asked the petitioners to summarize the facts of the case. The teams were well researched and presented convincing arguments to support the case on their respective sides. The judges questioned the participants on the intricacies of the law, and international principles centered around the case at hand. After both the sides presented their arguments, they proceeded to the rebuttals.
Court Room 6: NLU Assam faced NALSAR, in what was a tough battle. Both the teams presented a set of cogent and impressive arguments before the judges. Multiple questions were shot at them but the teams showed exceptional confidence and stood their ground. The judges seemed pleased with the ancillary issues presented by the counsels to support their central argument. At the end both the sides engaged in prompt rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side.
Court Room 7: IILM Gurgaon squared up against the equally talented team of NUALS Kochi. The participants presented well drafted arguments indicative of the thorough research carried out by them. The participants seemed well versed with the intricacies of the problem and were questioned by the judges on the particulars of the law and its authoritative backing. The participants answered to the best of their ability and the judges were thus highly impressed. Following the arguments, the participants presented their rebuttals
Court Room 9: CNLU Patna and RGNUL faced off in a neck-to-neck round. The court room saw the bustle as the counsel on behalf of the petitioners received a round of questions from the Bench, which they answered to the best of their ability. Both the teams were given the time extension and later they were engaged in prompt rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side. The feedback was enriching for both the teams.
Preliminary Round 3 – 4:00 PM – 5:30 PM
Court Room 1: NUALS Kochi was up against NLU, Jodhpur. The participants presented articulate arguments that convinced the judges as to their assertions, backed by proper authorities of law. The teams had very competitive speakers. Both the teams engaged in prompt rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side. In the end, the judges gave crucial feedback to the teams that would help them improve their understanding of the law.
Court Room 3: RGNUL squared up against NIRMA University in an intense round where the judges grilled the counsels on the intricacies of novation and relevant legal provisions. The judge focused on various peculiarities of law that prompted the participants to come up with several interesting arguments. The participants answered to the best of their ability and the judges were thus thoroughly impressed.
Court Room 4: VIPS and MNLU Mumbai faced each in a cutthroat round. Fine set of arguments were presented by the two sides accompanied with answering questions presented by the judges in an attempt to make their respective cases stronger. The counsels presented their arguments with utmost clarity and coherence. The participants were questioned by the judges, and they answered the same with authorities and legal backing. The round came to a successful end after both the teams delivered their rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side.
Court Room 5: NLIU Bhopal and SLS Pune was a close fight between two premier law schools. The participants presented their arguments in an attempt to make their case strong. The participants gave thorough answers to the judges. Following the arguments, the participants presented the Rebuttals. The judges gave an inspiring feedback at the end, and provided insight to the participants on how they can improve.
Court Room 7: HPUILS was up against BML Munjal University. The court room saw an engaging round as the judges were asking numerous questions. The counsels attempted their best to try and satisfy the judges of the legal backing to their arguments. Later, they were engaged in prompt rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side. Both the teams were equally matched in research and it all came down to the skills of oral presentations.
The Quarterfinals : 6:15 PM – 8:00 PM
Court Room 1: National Law University, Jodhpur was up against VIPS, Tech Campus in the quarterfinals round being judged by Mr. Hari Krishnan, Mr. Neel Kamal Mishra and Mr. Abhinav Mathur, all of whom are very experienced. The judges questioned the parties on the binding value of legal provisions mentioned by the counsel. They posed several tricky questions which were answered by the counsels in a tactful manner and this taught them the much-valued art of thinking on one’s feet.
Court Room No. 2: The room witnessed the round between CNLU, Patna and NLUJA, Assam. The bench comprised of Mr. Deepesh, Mr. Abhikalp Singh, and Mr. Ramesh Kumar Maali. The participants seemed exceptionally well versed with the facts and principles of law being applied to the case at hand. The nuanced approach applied by the counsels to satisfy the queries of the bench were indicative of the well-researched case being argued in the round. Both the teams were given a time extension and later they were engaged in prompt rebuttals and sur-rebuttals against the arguments presented by the other side.
Court Room No. 3 : HNLU, Raipur squared up against NMIMS Kirti P. Mehta School of Law. The round was judged by the learned bench comprising of Mr. Samiron Borkataky, Mr. Tushar Behl, and Ms. Aagam Kaur. The round began with the Team from HNLU Raipur presenting its arguments. The counsel was asked to throw some light on the facts of the case. Following which the team was questioned thoroughly with respect to Arbitration Law. The counsel answered the questions with proper legal backing and sound legal principles. The team from NMIMS showed great zeal in presenting their arguments and dealt with all the questions thrown at them. This round brought out several interesting insights into the characteristics of the problem and their argumentation. Following the rounds the judges gave valuable feedback to the participants in order to help them overcome their shortcomings
Court Room 4: The room saw Nirma Law University going up against MNLU Mumbai. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Mr. Anant Vijay Maria and Ms. Gunjan Mangla were on the bench that posed a series of questions which put the participants in a position to think and come up with the most convincing arguments. Both sides were confident and articulate in presenting their sides before the judges. The round came to an end with a brief and crisp set of rebuttals and sur-rebuttals. The rounds ended with teams from National Law University Jodhpur, Nirma University, NMIMS Kirti P. Mehta School of Law and CNLU, Patna qualifying for the semifinals. They left the gala dinner with excitement and nervousness for the big day tomorrow.
Day 3 – Semi-Finals and Final Rounds
12:00 PM: The Semi-Finals
Court Room No. 1: The match-up between Nirma Law University and NMIMS Kirti P. Mehta School of Law was an extraordinary display of in-depth legal research and oral argumentation. The round was judged by the learned bench composed of Ms. Kavita Sarin, Ms. Jyoti Dastidar and Mr. Gantavya Chandra. Both the teams were given a time limit of 45 minutes each to present their arguments including rebuttals and sur-rebuttals. The teams were equally matched in their attempt to present strong and clear cases to the judges. The judges had a good grasp of the moot proposition and questioned the counsels thoroughly. They seemed pleased with the ancillary issues presented by the counsels to support their central argument. The round was reflective of the participant’s thoroughness of the law applied. By covering the finer points of the law, all four counsels covered all possibilities and contingencies to the case at hand and hence concluded a hard-fought semi-final round.
Court Room 2: NLU Jodhpur versus CNLU, Patna was a fierce round of arguments and counter-arguments. The bench comprised of Mr. Vaibhav Joshi, Dr. Prasenjit Kundu and Mr. Gauhar Mirza. The round began with the team from NLU Jodhpur presenting their arguments. The counsel was asked to summarize the facts of the case before proceeding with the arguments. The judges grilled the participants regarding the facts mentioned in the moot proposition. The team from CNLU, Patna was questioned thoroughly on various aspects of the law that is quite dynamic in nature. The participants answered the questions tactfully and provided the judges with answers they were looking for. Mr. Gauhar Mirza asked well-structured questions in order to gauge the knowledge of facts. The counsels had to balance time-management with the plethora of issues to be dealt with. Fine speaking skills were put on display by the participants. The teams cited various authorities to back their arguments, to the satisfaction of the bench and as a counter to the contentions of the opposing counsels. It was a closely contested round which came down to the rebuttals in the final minutes of the round. The round was hard fought, adding to the anticipation of the results.
2:45 PM: The much awaited results of the Semi-finals have been declared, the teams making it to the Finals of 1st RMLNLU – Kochhar & Co. Arbitration Moot Court Competition, 2023 are NMIMS Kirti P. Mehta School of Law and NLU, Jodhpur.
4:00 PM to 6:00 PM: The Final Round
Petitioner
Speaker 1: The counsel argued about Section 57 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and its interpretation. The next sub-argument was that the current Mediation Act does not have retrospective application. The case of J.S. Yadav v Uttar Pradesh was referred to by the counsel. The remedy of arbitration under a novated contract is not valid according to the counsel. Senior Adv., Addl. Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati ma’am asked various questions to the counsel on fundamentals of the facts and law. The counsel cited several examples regarding the Mediation Act, 2021 to substantiate her arguments like Section 58-65 of Mediation Act and concluded that the application of the act should be prospective.
Speaker 2: The counsel argued that there was no series of fraud, following which several factual questions were shot in her way but the counsel stuck to her argument. The counsel was further asked about the allegation of fraud. The judges asked the counsel to cite recent judgements to support her case to which the counsel obliged. The counsel pleaded that FMCA falls under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (there was no mediated settlement agreement) and the intentions of the party were stressed upon. The counsels had challenged the validity of FMCA and agreed to give extra assets to support family values and argued that they do not want a family to fall apart. After a short extension of time, the judges thanked the counsels for their assistance and the submissions were concluded.
Respondent
Speaker 1 : The counsels argued on the invocation and validity of arbitration clause under FMCA and novation. The judges questioned the counsels on their submissions. The counsels stressed on harmonical reading of the FAA and FMCA, harmonious interpretation of the agreements. Questions on dispute resolution, good faith and the finality of this dispute were also asked. Senior Adv., Addl. Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati ma’am asked various intricate questions which were answered by the counsel to the best of their ability.
Speaker 2 : The counsel pleaded on the retrospectivity of the act and that the act is prima facie civil in nature. The judges asked whether there was a declaration in the act about retrospectivity and the difference of proceedings in commencement and otherwise. The counsel had requested for the wider interpretation of the said clause as the substantial rights of the parties are affected. Judges thoroughly questioned the counsel on the facts of the case and on the use of fraud vitiating the consent. The counsel cited various authorities for the case and the arbitrability of the matter. The judges referred to various clauses of the arbitration act and asked questions on the same. Both the counsels gave their rebuttal and sur-rebuttals and concluded their submissions.
6:30 PM: The Valedictory Ceremony and Declaration of Results
Nervousness hung in the air as the teams joined the meeting for the declaration of results. After a brief address by Prof. (Dr.) Sudhir K. Bhatnagar, Vice Chancellor of the university wherein he welcomed everyone to the 1st RMLNLU – Kochhar & Co. Arbitration Moot Court Competition, 2023 and thanked our sponsors for the support they have given to this competition. He thanked the problem drafters for drafting a problem that dealt with such contemporary issues. Then an address was delivered by our Guests of honour Mr. Sumeet Malik, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Mr. Murali Neelakantan and Mr. Manish Dembla who gave valuable feedback to the participants. Mr. Sumeet Malik shared his thoughts on development in legal research with development in technology and how empathy helps in better performance in understanding the issues of clients, counsels etc. Senior Adv., Addl. Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati ma’am talked about the Indian Constitution, its nuances, the way forward and also how dispute resolution has to develop with growing technology while safeguarding the basic principles being:- honesty, hard work and humility. Afterwards, Mr. Manish Dembla (Partner, Kochhar and Co.) shared how judging in this competition refreshed many fond memories of his college and moot court competitions. Mr. Manish Dembla also thanked the committee and the college for beginning a new relationship with Kochhar and wished the committee luck in conducting future editions of the RMLNLU – Kochhar & Co. Arbitration Moot Court Competition.
The results of the 1st RMLNLU – Kochhar & Co. Arbitration Moot Court Competition, 2023 were declared –
Best Memorial – Nirma Law University
Best Speaker – Kartikay Puneesh
Runner’s Up – NMIMS
Winner – NLU Jodhpur
The 1st edition of the RMLNLU – Kochhar & Co. Arbitration Moot Court Competition, 2023 was thus, concluded.
