[Live Updates] : 5th NLIU Justice R. K. Tankha Memorial International Arbitration Moot Court Competition
Courtroom 8
Courtroom no. 8
Judges - Agnish Aditya, Rohan Harne
TC - 44, National University of Singapore, Claimant
Seakers - Andrew Ng, Peggy Gan
Researcher - Swetambara Chaudhary
Team - swing
The rounds have started and opening arguments were given by the respondents. They argue that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code shall supersede the arbitration law. They place reliance on the fact that there is no privity of contract. The judges do not seem very satisfied with the respondent's arguments and now the claimants have begun with their submissions.
Court Room 21
Team code 37
NUALS Kochi
Claimant
S 1 Abhishek Lalwani
S2 Abhishek Jamalpur
R Puru Varma
R Anubhav Sharma
Team code 5
Auro University
Respondent
S1 Sahil Chariniya
S2 Aman Dange
R Savan Dhamilya
Judges: Saubhagya Bhadkariya and Navshesh Kshetri
The Teams have decided among themselves that the respondents would begin with their submissions and so the Counsel begins by arguing the ambiguity of the agreement and how this should render it invalid as it will then be interpreted as a contra proferentem.
The Panel raises an important question relating to the party’s consent on the addendum. The energy in the room is high and questions are being answered with the same vigor in which they are asked!
Court Room 15
The clock's ticking! The judges don't seem very convinced with the respondent's arguments but the speaker continues being given some extra time. The arguments get heated and the times up! The respondents look worried. The speaker is anxious and the grilling continues.
Courtroom: 17
Judges: Harsh Pandey, Siddharth Nigotia
Petitioner: TC28; SLS Noida
Speakers: Aman Shankar, Shrishti Vatsa
Researchers: Vanshika Arora
Respondent: TC32; VIPS Delhi
Speakers: Aryman Sharma, Shweta Shukla
Researchers: Ashutosh Sharan and Anshita.
Confidence, Charm and Conviction are the three words that one may use to describe the rounds at hand. The amount of hard work that the teams had undergone was clearly exhibited in their ready answers and deep knowledge of the law. Even the judges through their interminable questioning couldn’t fluster the counsels as they presented their arguments. The round began with a bit of hesitation on the part of the Speakers but as the minutes ticked by, the teams gained more confidence and proceeded with their speeches comfortably.
Courtroom 5
11:10- Counsel for the Claimant, Ananya, is brilliant at thinking on her feet, as she cruised past the daunting questions with impeccable skill. She is promptly answering all the questions without hesitation as she continues with her submissions.
Court room 5
11:04- Counsels for the Respondent are taking notes diligently and are actively listening to the Claimant's arguments to better prepare for the rebuttals.
The Counsel's for the Claimants have presented convincing submissions so far, as the round progresses with the judges listening on intently.
Courtroom no. 13
Judges- Pragya Sharma and Jomol Roy
Teams-
Claimant- TC12, School of Excellence in Law
Respondent- TC26, Amity Law School Delhi
An intense debate ensued between the judge and the claimant and the judge was not satisfied with the claimant's argument. The claimant cited an ICC judgment but the judge said that the tribunal was not under an obligation to follow that judgment.
Courtroom 9
Judge Manini Brar asked for some clarification regarding the speaker's contention and the latter explained herself promptly. Satisfied by the answer provided, the judge asked the speaker to continue. The speaker started with the second issue.
Keeping aside the minimal grilling by the judges, the mood of the courtroom is fairly relaxed.
The court clerk made a signal for letting the participants, as well as the judges, know that the time limit provided to the first speaker has come to and end. However, the judges are not content and have asked another question to explain her contention.
The second speaker is, very dramatically, putting forth her arguments. The judges seem very involved in the issue and henceforth, are asking multiple questions providing hypothetical situations to test the legal knowledge of the second speaker.