[Live Updates] : 5th NLIU Justice R. K. Tankha Memorial International Arbitration Moot Court Competition

Court Room no. 12

Judges : Anuja pethia and Raghav Kumar Singh

Team Code-22

Claimants

KIIT School of Law

Speaker 1-Tamanna Patnaik

Speaker 2-Ayushi Pathy

Researcher-Akriti Patel

Team code 12

Respondent

SOEL,Chennai

Speaker 1 :Harikrishna.P

Speaker 2 :Sonu Mehtha

Researchers : Saughanthika.AS. and Mitesh.RAt

At 12:37, rounds have started in courtroom 12.

The respondents being well versed with the facts are able to very effectively answer the questions asked by the judges. However, the claimants struggle to do the same.

The whole courtroom was taken by surprise when Mr Arbitrator asks “What is the capital of Iran?”, following an authority cited by the speaker. The speaker however fails to answer the same.

The claimants fail to answer the questions asked and the tension on their faces is very visible.

The respondents on the other hand, very successfully clarify all the doubts of the judges and move ahead with their submissions. As the compendium for the respondents is very neatly marked, the judges are able to follow the speaker and the arguments flow smoothly.

Court room 5

Judges:

Swaraj Singh Narula

Vasu Nigam

TC 31- Hidayatulla National Law University (Respondent)

Speakers:

Nikhil Kumar

Rohil Kenue

Researchers:

Aviral Tripathi

Vanshay kaul

T40- Army Institute of Law, Mohali (Claimant)

Speakers:

Saksham Khunger

Arsh Singh

12:51- With the Priliminary round 2 in session in Court room 5 now, the judges start with questioning the Counsels for the claimants regarding disclosures made in the case. The Speaker, though hesitant, duly answered the query and moved on with his submissions.

13:25- Both, the mannerisms as well as the stance assumed by the Counsel for the respondent is highly professional. They seem to be extremely versed with each and every clause of the applicable treaties.

13:30- The speakers continue their submissions by giving absolutely brilliant arguments to lead to the disclosure of the finances of the Claimant. The judges, content with the submissions, seem to be pleased with the Speakers and listen on intently.

Court room no. 13

The teams in this room are facing intense questioning from the judges. The respondents are questioned about how the claimants had an unfair advantage over them. The judges refused to accept the respondent's argument of coercion due to lack of authority.

Ms. Pragya dismissed the respondent's argument of urgency to sign the contract, thereby not being able to fully read it.

Court room no. 18

1:20- Both sides have put forth their arguments. The counsels have argued in the best way possible. It's time for rebuttals now. A lot of counter arguments were witnessed and the rounds have finally ended with the teams waiting eagerly for the results.

Court room no : 22

Judges : Muneeswaran, Ritwik Parashar

Team code: 11

NMIMS, Mumbwi

Representing : Claimants

Speakers : Saloni Khandelwal, Manya Goyal

Researcher : Apurva Doshi

Team code :44

National University of Singapore

Representing : Respondent

Speakers : swetambara and Peggy Gan

Researcher : Andrew Ng

The round commenced with the Claimants not being able to impress the judges as they were unable to decipher a specific issue which the claimants wanted to argue on. Further, the Respondent proceeded with raising arguments that essentially put up a strong front against the arguments of the claimants. They supported their claims with reliable authorities and stated that the claimants suffered no damages and their claims should be render void. The judges appeared to very impressed by the argumentative line taken.

Court room no: 2

Judges: praharsh johorey, varsha sriram

Teams

(TC42,Auro University surat claimant)

(TC9, MNLU respondent)

Speaker(s):

MNLU Mumbai: Shruti Dhonde and Khushbu Shah

Auro Uni: Sahil Charniya and Aman Dange

Researcher(s):

MNLU: Devshree Patil and Kareena Sobti

Auro Uni : Savan Dhameliya

The respondents seemed extremely prepared with a table fill of books and compendiums. Being the first team to start the competition, the participants faced hard questioning from the very beginning. After questioning with respect to the arbitral agreement, the judges seemed to be eager for a few more sources from both sides which was not presented.

Court room 20

Judges : Padma Singh, Meher Tandon

Team code :7

SLS, Hyderabad

Representing : Claimants

Speakers: Abijith Christopher, Sulagna Dutta

Researcher : Srijita Goswami

Team code : 46

NLUD

Representing : Respondent

Speakers : Vaidehi Pendam, Muskaan Nandwani

Researcher: Mayank Goyal

The Respondent started with brief outline of their submissions and proceeded with their arguments. Further, the claimants responded to the issues raised by the Respondent to which the Mr. Arbitrator intervened and stated that there was no consensus ad idem at the time of making of the contract. With this development, Madam Arbitrator also asked the claimant whether they tried to negotiate before and had any clause for arbitration in their contract. The Claimants were quick to answer the questions with enthusiasm and satisfy the judges.

Court room 6

1:05- The judges listened carefully to the arguments presented by the Respondents. As the incessant questioning continues, the speaker maintains her calm and shows great advocacy skills. She refers the Tribunal to the applicable cases mentioned in their compendium and proceeds to explain the cases in detail.

1:10- The speaker makes reference to her written submissions while making her arguments. The judges seem impressed with her arguments and presentation and are completely appreciative of the exemplary skill the speaker displays.

Court Room No. 10

Courtroom 10

Judges- Piryam Judale and Bishen Jeswant

Nirma Universtiy TC30- Abhilekh Tiwari (s1)

Kritika Tailor (s2), Anisha Bhandari (r)

Aditya Sharma (r)

Amity Law School, Delhi TC26- Daksh Mehta (s1) and Jaivish Harjai (s2)

Arushi Sharma (r1) and Harpal Singh (r2)

The first speaker for the claimant is fighting hard to prove that pre negotiations must be taken into account and that the place of arbitration is also vital. The judge has questioned their intention of coming into the tribunal and has called them out over against making blanket statements and for not having to a legal backing to their arguments. Similarly, the second speaker for the claimant has been grilled on factual aspects of the problem, the source of funding being the crux of the question posed by the judges. The speaker successfully dodged the question thus keeping the name anonymous.

Court Room No. 11

Judges: Rajeshwari Mukherjee and Preena Salgai

Team code : 1

Respondent

Speaker 1: Ishaan Gupta

Speaker 2: Hunar Malik

Researcher : Chinmay Mehta

Gujarat National Law University

Team code 18

Claimant

University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU

Speaker 1- Rohan Mandal

Speaker 2- Shiva Pande

Researcher- Ishita Khurana

At 12:32, the rounds have started in court room 11 with the claimants very firmly starting their arguments. Answering all the questions, they proceed to clarifying their stance. Referring to the compendium, they guide the tribunal to the authorities, a confusion on both sides followed by some laughs, lightens the air in the room. A heated argument has begun on the direct economic interest of the parties. Another confusion is clarified very smoothly by the speaker restoring the unruffled air. The researcher quickly has directed the speaker to the exhibits and he successfully explains the facts with reference to the questions asked.The respondents face difficulty in answering the questions and fail to satisfy the judges.