Dr M. V. V. S. Murthi 3rd National Virtual Moot Court Competition, 2022 | Organised by GITAM School of Law, Visakhapatnam<\/h2>\n
GITAM’s Moot & Advocacy Committee (GMAC) is proud to announce that GITAM School of Law, Visakhapatnam, is organising\u00a0 Dr M. V. V. S. Murthi 3rd National Virtual Moot Court Competition for the year 2022.<\/p>\n
As Mooting forms an essential part of any legal education, we at GITAM School of Law recognise the need for training students in it and honing their argumentative skills. GMAC was created in 2019, to provide students with an opportunity to improve their interpersonal and advocacy skills.<\/p>\n
GITAM School of Law had successfully organised the National Moot Court Competition on Space Law in 2020 and 2nd National Virtual Moot Court Competition in 2021,\u00a0 both of which been huge accomplishments. This year, GMAC is back with the 3rd edition of Dr M.V.V.S. Murthi National Virtual Moot Court Competition, from 1st – 4th of September 2022<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The team of GMAC is delighted to welcome you and keep you updated through out the event!<\/p>\n 1st September, 2022 (Day 1) – Inaugural Ceremony and Researchers’ Test<\/p>\n 2nd September, 2022 (Day 2) – Preliminary Rounds – Session 1 & 2<\/p>\n 3rd September, 2022 (Day 3) – Quarter-Finals and Semi-Finals<\/p>\n 4th September, 2022 (Day 4) – Finals and Valedictory Ceremony<\/p>\n The following teams have registered and shall be competing in the competition:<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n As the first day of our event begins, we are overjoyed with gratitude in our hearts and excitement in our minds!<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Inaugural Ceremony and Researchers’ Test: 4:00 PM<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 4:05 PM –<\/strong> The session has been initiated by Ms. Nishitha Kirty (Student Coordinator, GMAC)<\/p>\n 4:08 PM –\u00a0<\/strong>The welcome note is given by the Director of GITAM School of Law Prof. Dr. Anita Rao. Ma’am has given a brief about the necessity of moot court competitions for law students and the importance of artificial intelligence and intellectual property, upon which the moot proposition is based. She has also encouraged the participants and law students to take part in moot courts to develop problem solving abilities to excel as future advocates.<\/p>\n 4:10 PM –\u00a0<\/strong>The link for the Researchers’ test has been sent to the participants and the test has begun.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 4:20 PM – <\/strong>Hon\u2019ble Vice-Chancellor of GITAM Deemed to be University, Prof. Dayananda Siddavattam has addressed the importance of patent law. Sir has emphasized the necessity of training the students in patent laws as future legal professionals. He has noted the increasing scope of hiring legal experts in pharma companies. Finally, Sir gave his word of appreciation to the participants, sponsors and the organising committee.<\/p>\n 4:32 PM-\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>GITAM Deemed to be University’s President M. Sri Bharat has addressed the gathering by giving his valuable insights with relevance to the law and justice system in India. Sir has shared his life experiences with the local judicial system. He advised students choosing different streams in the field of law to maintain the importance of law to uplift social justice. He further talked about the importance of future lawyers and how helpful they can be for the well being of the society.<\/p>\n 4:40 PM-<\/strong>\u00a0 The Researchers’ Test ended. We hope the all the Researchers have done well!<\/p>\n 4:44 PM-<\/strong> \u00a0The Director, School of Law has convened her gratitude to the President and Vice-Chancellor, GITAM University.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 4:45 PM-\u00a0<\/strong> Dr. D. Gunasekaran, Registrar, GITAM Deemed to be University, has emphasized that even as legal system is complex, rendering justice is important. Sir has encouraged the students to participate in moot courts to augment their argumentative and research skills as future advocates. He has expressed his note of thanks to GITAM School of Law for organising the moot and Adv. Shri V. Ravindra Prasad, President, Visakhapatnam Bar Association for conceding to be the Guest of Honor.<\/p>\n 4:47 PM – <\/strong>Adv. Shri V. Ravindra Prasad, President, Visakhapatnam Bar Association, the Guest of Honor, has conveyed his regards to the organisers, sponsors and participants of the Moot Court Competition. Sir has noted that the rise of virtual moot courts has been necessitated due to the pandemic scenario. However, he expressed his hope for the organising of a physical moot court competition in the future.<\/p>\n 4:53 PM – <\/strong>Asst. Prof. GITAM School of Law, Mr. Vardhman S. Panwar (Faculty Coordinator, GMAC) has addressed the gathering by briefing about the schedule for the following 3 days (2nd – 4th September, 2022). He explained as to how the prelims, quarters, semis and the finals are to take place.<\/p>\n 5:00 PM<\/strong> –<\/strong> The Vote of thanks has been extended by Asst. Prof. Ms. Rhea Hundal to all the honorable dignitaries present, and the participants across eminent law schools of the country. Further, she thanked the Director of GITAM School of Law for her support at every moment. Ma’am has also expressed gratitude towards the management of the GITAM University, faculty of GITAM School of Law and the team of GMAC for their diligence in organising the event.<\/p>\n 5:05 PM –\u00a0<\/strong>National Anthem<\/p>\n 5:15 PM –<\/strong> Asst. Prof. Mr. Vardhman S. Panwar has virtually drawn the lots to match up the teams for the preliminary rounds.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 10:00 AM –<\/strong> The preliminary rounds are about to begin, it’s surely going to be a brainstorming discourse on IPR Law.<\/p>\n 10:02 AM – <\/strong>The teams are all prepped up and are enthusiastic for the day’s proceedings.<\/p>\n 10:03 AM<\/strong>\u00a0 –\u00a0<\/strong>With an unfettering zeal, the proceedings in the courtrooms have duly begun!<\/p>\n 10:05 AM –<\/strong> All the Courtrooms are officially in session.<\/p>\n 10:07 AM – <\/strong>Team VMC 22 (petitioners) started presenting the factual matrix to the judges.<\/p>\n 10:08 AM<\/strong> –<\/strong> Team VMC 11 (Petitioners) presented the facts and moved further to argue by presenting the issues to the Hon’ble judges.<\/p>\n 10:09 AM –<\/strong> In Courtroom 1, Team VMC 21 has respectively stated the division of time for their arguments.<\/p>\n 10:10 AM –<\/strong> The Hon’ble judge in courtroom 5 has questioned the petitioners about jurisdiction of the case.<\/p>\n 10:20 AM – <\/strong>In\u00a0Courtroom 9 , Team VMC 16 stated that the suit is maintainable under the jurisdiction of the High Court and the powers conferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 10:22 AM –<\/strong> In Courtroom 4, both the teams are battling it out (VMC 10 v. VMC 03). Speaker 1 of VMC 10 duly informs the bench that he shall be dealing with the issues 1 and 2 while their co-counsel would be dealing with issue 3 and 4.<\/p>\n 10:25 AM – <\/strong>Time division has been allotted to the teams (VMC15 and VMC 08) in Courtroom 7.<\/p>\n 10:27 AM – <\/b>The Judge in Courtroom 2 question Team VMC 12 (petitioners) how can the High Court overlook the Arbitration clause.<\/p>\n 10:32 AM –<\/strong> The Judge in Courtroom 4 questions the counsel regarding the proper acronym of a writ petition on their memorial and asks the researcher of their team to find it out.<\/p>\n 10:36 AM –<\/strong> The petitioners in Courtroom 3 argued that both the petitioners and the respondent had a contract for service and the software in question is an independent project of the petitioner and was not a part of his work as an employee.<\/p>\n 10:41 AM – <\/strong>Courtroom 2 is heated up with the judge asking about different ways of filing a patent to the speaker of VMC 12. The speaker answers took the citation of an English jurisdiction. The arguments by the counsel representing the petitioners took support of the employer and employee rights.<\/p>\n 10:45 AM –<\/strong> The Judge of Courtroom 4 reprimands the counsel for beating around the bush, as the counsel struggles to justify the substantial issue of law and the memorials make use of cases suggesting alternate form of remedy.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 10:49 AM –<\/strong> The Counsel 2 in Courtroom 5 started to argue about the validity of the patent with the law of the land and with concern to the company’s terms and conditions. The counsel has proven the case’s jurisdiction with the present court of law.<\/p>\n 10:54 AM<\/strong> – The speakers of Courtroom 1 (Team VMC 21) submitted that when there is an agreement, whether it is a contract for service or contract of service, the contract is not conclusive with regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n 11:00 AM – <\/strong>Speaker 2 of VMC 15 presented their arguments, asks for the prayer and concludes the issues.<\/p>\n 11:04 AM –<\/strong> Team VMC 16 of Courtroom 9 duly appeals to the court that the invention made by the petitioner is done during his free time and hence the employer has no right of claim on it.<\/p>\n 11:06 AM –<\/strong> The Judges in Courtroom 10 are dissatisfied with the arguments presented by the speakers and asked to proceed with clearer arguments.<\/p>\n 11:08 AM –<\/strong>\u00a0 Judge Ashish Kumar has sought further clarification pertaining to the agreement between the employer and employee, and the nature of Ediostech Ltd. The judge further questioned whether the petitioner can be considered as a consultant or not.<\/p>\n 11:10 AM –<\/strong> Speaker 2 of Team VMC 19 is dealing with their issue 2 in Courtroom 8\u00a0 and successfully justified their arguments backed with the Constitution.<\/p>\n 11:12 AM –<\/strong> Speaker 2 of VMC 8 stated about the employer – employee agreement and cites s. 70 of the Indian Contract Act.<\/p>\n 11:15 AM – <\/strong>The respondents (VMC 06) in Courtroom 9 started presenting their arguments. The counsel states that there has been a violation of patent and files a writ petition under Art. 226 for the violation of fundamental and legal rights.<\/p>\n 11:18AM – <\/strong>The Judge in Courtroom 2 asked the speaker of VMC 09 to interpret the term “course of employment” literally.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 11:21 AM – <\/strong>The respondent counsel started presenting their arguments in Courtroom 10.<\/p>\n 11:24 AM –<\/strong> Counsel for petitioners in Courtroom 8 (VMC 19) submitted their prayer to the Judge.<\/p>\n 11:25 AM – <\/strong>Speaker 2 of VMC 09 in Courtroom 2 cites s. 39 of the United Kingdom Patent Act and pleads defense of “duty to invent”<\/p>\n 11:26 AM –<\/strong> The respondents in Courtroom 3 began arguing the maintainability of the writ mandamus filed by the petitioners. Further, they put forth the argument that the software was developed within the consultation period.<\/p>\n 11:29 AM –<\/strong> The respondents (VMC 05) in Courtroom 1 have been asked to give clarification with regard to the nature of the contract, i.e.,\u00a0 whether it is contract “for” service or “of” service and the counsel sought permission to venture a guess and responded that it would be contract of service.<\/p>\n 11:30 AM –<\/strong> Team VMC 08 start the rebuttal stating that Ediostech Ltd. did not clarify as to what kind of company they are and made statement regarding the jurisdiction.<\/p>\n 11:31 AM –<\/strong> Counsels for petitioners in Courtroom 8 are barraged with a wide array of questions by the opposing counsel.<\/p>\n 11:32 AM –<\/strong> Speaker 2 of VMC 09 was asked about the difference between a holding company and subsidiary company.<\/p>\n 11:33 AM –<\/strong> Counsel 2 of VMC 01 submits the prayer before the Judge. The counsel of VMC 11 presents the rebuttals before the honorable judges and VMC 01 submits their sub-rebuttals. Thereafter, the opposing counsel submits their sub-rebuttal 2.<\/p>\n 11:34 AM –<\/strong> Speaker 1 of VMC 21 commenced with their rebuttals stating that Ediostech Pvt. Ltd. is not a rightful owner since the employee is not under the employer’s payroll. He further states that the petitioner is only a consultant for six months and not an employee.<\/p>\n 11:35 AM –<\/strong> The respondents in Courtroom 03 bring up the concept of fiduciary relationship between the company and the employee.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 11:36AM – <\/strong>Speaker 2 of VMC 12 rebutted saying that the English laws have a persuasive value.<\/p>\n 11:37 AM –<\/strong> Both the counsels of Courtroom 1 started\u00a0 presenting their rebuttals and sub-rebuttals.<\/p>\n 11:38 AM –<\/strong> The proceedings in Courtroom 09 have concluded.<\/p>\n 11:39 AM –<\/strong> The Judges of Courtroom 10 has allowed both counsels for the rebuttals, but they refrained.<\/p>\n 11:40 AM –<\/strong> Speaker 1 of VMC 07 requested for a 2 minute extension to conclude their submission. The Judge duly agreed to their request and granted an extension.<\/p>\n 11:43 PM –<\/strong> The proceedings in all courtrooms have successfully come to an end.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n After an intriguing set of arguments by all the teams, we have arrived to the end of first session of the preliminary rounds!\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 2:00 PM –<\/strong> All the participants are now ready to battle each other in the 2nd session of the preliminary rounds.<\/p>\n 2:03 PM –<\/strong> The proceedings in all the courtrooms have now officially begun!<\/p>\n 2:05 PM –<\/strong> Speaker 1 of VMC 04 in Courtroom 9 started with stating the facts and issues of the case.<\/p>\n 2:08 PM –<\/strong> Speaker 1 of VMC 07 has been solicited by the Judges to substantiate their arguments with case laws.<\/p>\n 2:12 PM –<\/strong>\u00a0 The counsel for petitioners in Courtroom 2 successfully put forth issue 1.<\/p>\n 2:15 PM –<\/strong> Team VMC 9 (Petitioners) has enthusiastically put forwards the facts and issues of the case.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 2:18 PM –\u00a0<\/strong>The Judge in Courtroom 4 sought for clarification regarding the difference between a consultant and an independent contractor from the speaker.<\/p>\n 2:21 PM –<\/strong> Speakers of VMC 02 in Courtroom 2 have started addressing their issue 2.<\/p>\n 2:23 PM –<\/strong> Counsel for petitioners in Courtroom 8 and 10 have successfully put forth their facts and issues.<\/p>\n 2:26 PM –\u00a0<\/strong>The Judges of Courtroom 4 have questioned the counsel regarding the jurisdiction of the case.<\/p>\n 2:29 PM –<\/strong> The team VMC 08 in Courtroom 7 started explaining about the arbitration clause of the privity.<\/p>\n 2:31 PM –<\/strong> In Courtroom 1, the Judge asks the counsel representing petitioners about “reasonable restrictions”.<\/p>\n 2:34 PM –<\/strong> The Judges in Courtroom 6 seek clarification from the respondents asking how far is Art. 12 of the Constitution is applicable in the present case.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 2:36 PM –<\/strong> Team VMC 09 fails to answer a few question posed by the Judges.<\/p>\n 2:38 PM –<\/strong> In Courtroom 7, the counsel was asked to interpret the word “any” in their issue.<\/p>\n 2:41 PM –\u00a0<\/strong>The Judge in Courtroom 6 asks the counsel of VMC 09 whether the employer has granted the equipment for the patent. the Judge seeks further clarification on patent law.<\/p>\n 2:44 PM –<\/strong> In Courtroom 9, the counsel of the respondents argued that the petitioner has received benefits from the respondent and shall therefore be made the owner of the patent.<\/p>\n 2:47 PM –<\/strong> In Courtroom 4, the counsel started to state the reasons for justifying the revocation of the patent grant to Ediostech Ltd.<\/p>\n 2:50 PM –<\/strong> In Courtroom 1, the respondent started presenting their arguments and concentrated on IP time duration limitation. The Counsel talked about how previous judgements hold much value in current case scenarios.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 2:53 PM –<\/strong> The Judge questioned the speakers about the employer contract, to which the petitioner responds referring to a case, in Courtroom 7.<\/p>\n 2:55 PM –<\/strong> The rebuttals have begun in Courtroom 2.<\/p>\n 2:57 PM –<\/strong> The respondents in Courtroom 5 began arguing about the contract and put forwards their rebuttals about the consultation period.<\/p>\n 3:00 PM –<\/strong> In Courtroom 4, the counsel was asked how the Appellant court is the alternative remedy for the petition.<\/p>\n 3:03 PM –<\/strong> The counsel for petitioners in Courtroom 9 rebutted that the petitioner developed the patent not during the course of employment. To this, the opposite counsel responded with substantial case laws and legal provisions in order to prove their argument.<\/p>\n 3:06 PM –<\/strong> In Courtroom 6, the Judge asked the counsel regarding the relationship between an employer and employee with respect to Supreme Court Judgements.<\/p>\n 3:08 PM –<\/strong> The counsel representing respondents in Courtroom 10 submit their prayer before the bench and proceed to the rebuttals. The opposing counsel counter with their sub-rebuttals.<\/p>\n 3:10 PM –<\/strong> In Courtroom 8, Speaker 1 of VMC 21 retorts the rebuttal by the opposing counsel with profound assertion.<\/p>\n 3:12 PM –<\/strong> The Judge seeks clarification on different factual and legal points from the counsel representing the respondents, in Courtroom 6.<\/p>\n 3:14 PM –<\/strong> The proceedings in all the Courtrooms have adjourned for the day.<\/p>\n We now arrive at the end of session 2 of the preliminary rounds\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n After an intense day of the preliminary rounds, here are the teams that have made it to the Quarter-Finals:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n CONGRATUALTIONS TO THE TEAMS!<\/strong>\u00a0 (in no particular order)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Today as we commence the Day 3 of the event, we await to witness the engrossing Quarter-Finals!<\/p>\n In Courtroom 1, we will see Team VMC 11 v. VMC 08.<\/strong><\/p>\n In Courtroom 2, Team VMC 15<\/strong> will take on Team VMC 05<\/strong>.<\/p>\n In Courtroom 3, Team VMC 21<\/strong> facing Team VMC 01.<\/strong><\/p>\n In courtroom 4, Its Team VMC 12 v VMC 02.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 9:59 AM –<\/strong> The Courtrooms are all set for the commencement of Quarter-Finals. All the best to the Qualifying teams!<\/p>\n 10:03 AM –<\/strong> All the four Courtrooms are officially in session.<\/p>\n 10:05 AM –<\/strong> Speaker 1 of VMC 15 (petitioners) in Courtroom 2 is establishing the maintainability of the suit before the High Court.<\/p>\n 10:08 AM –<\/strong> The team representing the petitioners in Courtroom 4 is being asked several interesting questions regarding their grievances.<\/p>\n 10: 12 AM –<\/strong> Team VMC 11 representing the petitioners in Courtroom 1 is addressing the Bench regarding the jurisdiction of the case referring to Art. 226 and 12 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n 10:15 AM –<\/strong> In Courtroom 3, the petitioners have successfully established the facts of the case before the Judges.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 10:18 AM –<\/strong> Speaker 1 of VMC 11 referred to s. 17 of the Indian Contract Act and contended against the alternate remedy clause used as a defense by the respondents.<\/p>\n 10:20 AM –<\/strong> Speaker 2 of VMC 15 in Courtroom 2 contends that the petitioner was not consulted by the company before filing for the patent.<\/p>\n 10:22 AM –<\/strong> The Counsel for petitioners in Courtroom 3 are explaining the issues before the Bench.<\/p>\n 10:25 AM –<\/strong> Team VMC 11 in Courtroom 1 was questioned by the Judge as to why the case was filed as a Writ and not an Appeal.<\/p>\n 10:27 AM –<\/strong> In Courtroom 4, Team VMC 12 was asked a question about their memorial by the Judge as to why they have involved the UK Patent Act and not the Kalosia Act. The Counsel’s justification was found to be satisfactory to the Judge.<\/p>\n 10:30 AM – <\/strong>Speaker 2 of VMC 11 has started presenting the arguments of issues 3 and 4.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 10:32 AM- <\/b>In courtroom 3, the counsel representing the petitioner are questioned by the judge about the writ Jurisdiction and the remedy they seek for their client.<\/p>\n 10:35 AM – <\/b>The speaker 2 of VMC 11 contended that the petitioner was not an employer, rather he was a consultant. he further discussed the importance of privity of contract and gave insights regarding the morality of patent laws.<\/p>\n 10:37 AM – <\/b>In Courtroom 2,\u00a0 the respondents argued on the grounds of alternative remedy and questioned the maintainability of the petition before the High Court.<\/p>\n 10:40 AM – <\/b>The Respondents in Courtroom 4 have started their arguments on the Jurisdiction of High Court and contended that the Writ of Mandamus is not maintainable. One such argument is deemed irrelevant by the Judge.<\/p>\n 10:43 AM – <\/b>In Courtroom 3, the speaker 2 of VMC 21 addressed the bench stating that the petitioner developed the software not in the course of employment but during his free time. They answered the questions of the judges about the nature of employment of the petitioner.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 10:47 AM –<\/strong> The speaker 1 0f VMC 08 presented the arguments basing on issue 1 and contended that the court does not have territorial jurisdiction.<\/p>\n 10:50 AM –<\/b> In Courtroom 02, the judges pointed out that the company’s laptop was simply being used because the petitioners laptop could not be used and questioned if this comes under use of company’s resources.<\/p>\n 10:52 AM – <\/strong>The counsel on behalf of respondents in Courtroom 01 began presenting the arguments based on Issue 2.<\/p>\n 10:56 AM – <\/b>The counsel representing the respondents in Courtroom 3 address the bench by submitting the compendium.<\/p>\n 11:00 AM – <\/b>In courtroom 2, the Counsel for respondents highlight the essentials of a contract and make reference to s.10, 11 of the Indian Contract Act. They further attempt to establish that the petitioner was competent to contract act and should therefore abide by the consultancy agreement.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n 11:03 AM – <\/b>In courtroom 04, a fierce round of rebuttals stared between Teams VMC12 and VMC 02. And with the end of that round the proceedings in Courtroom 04 comes to an end.<\/p>\n 11:07 AM<\/strong> – The speaker 1(petitioners) in Courtroom 01, rebutted the points raised by the respondents referring to the Labour courts. To this the opposing counsel sub-rebutted saying that the subject matter of the contract makes the petitioner a party to the contract.<\/p>\n 11:11 AM – <\/b>In Courtroom 03, the counsel for respondent answered the questions put forth by the judges regarding the timeline and registration of the patents.<\/p>\n 11:13 AM – <\/b>In the rebuttals happening in courtroom 02, a reference is made to the doctrine of waiver by the respondents to justify the alleged waiver of the petitioners rights over the software<\/p>\n 11:16 AM<\/strong> – The proceedings in all courtrooms have successfully concluded!<\/p>\nItinerary of the Competition:<\/h3>\n
<\/h3>\n
\n
DAY 1<\/h2>\n
1st September, 2022<\/em><\/h2>\n
Inaugural Ceremony<\/em><\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Day-1-1330-\u00d7-887-px-1.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Researchers-test-1330-\u00d7-887-px-1.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Untitled-1330-\u00d7-887-px-1.png\")
<\/p>\n~ End of DAY 1, eager to head into DAY 2 ~\u00a0<\/strong><\/h3>\n
DAY 2<\/strong><\/h2>\n
2nd September, 2022<\/em><\/h3>\n
Preliminary Rounds – Session 1<\/em><\/h3>\n
<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Preliminary-Rounds-1-1330-\u00d7-887-px-1.png\")
<\/h3>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Untitled-1330-\u00d7-887-px-3-1.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/4-1330-\u00d7-887-px-1.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Copy-of-3-1330-\u00d7-887-px-1.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/1-1330-\u00d7-887-px-1.png\")
<\/p>\nPreliminary Rounds – Session 2\u00a0<\/em><\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Preliminary-Round-21330-\u00d7-887-px-1.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Afternoon-1-1330-\u00d7-887-px-1.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Afternoon-2-1330-\u00d7-887-px-1.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Afternoon-3-1330-\u00d7-887-px-1.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/Afternoon-5-1330-\u00d7-887-px-1-1.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/teams-for-qf-1330-\u00d7-887-px-2-1.png\")
<\/h4>\n\n
~End of DAY 2~<\/h3>\n
DAY 3<\/strong><\/h2>\n
3rd September, 2022<\/em><\/h3>\n
Quarter-Finals\u00a0<\/i><\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/QF-1330-\u00d7-887-px-1.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/QF-SC-1-1-1.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/QF-SC-2-1.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/QF-SC-3-1-1.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/QF-SC-4-1.png\")
<\/p>\n