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

Courtroom 18

Court room no. 18

The Respondents have begun with their arguments.

The counsels are mainly challenging the addendum's validity, asserting that the contract is ambiguous and plead that the principle of contra proferentum must be applied to the case. The judges seek to test the counsel's knowledge of the law and are questioning them on the very details of the provisions.

Courtroom 14

Court room 14

The claimant argued vociferously to assert that SIAC is the arbitration center referred to in the case. However, Mr. Akshay Sapre was of the view that if it took so much of argument to ascertain if SIAC is the arbitration centre then there is something seriously wrong with the arbitration centre clause in the contract.

Court Room No. 19

The Judges asked the claimants to state the relevant issue. They were not satisfied with the arguments. The Counsel for the claimants stated that there is a breach of contract by the respondents. He ended his argument by saying that he has done all the formalities according to Section 7 of Sales of Goods Act.

Court Room: 3

Judges: Harpreet Singh; Kavita Singh

Team Code: 7 (SLS Hyderabad) (Respondents)

Speakers: Abhijith Christopher; Sulagna Dutta

Researcher: Srijita Goswami

Team Code: 19 (NUJS) (Claimants)

Speaker: Kavya Arora; Sakshi Sharma

Researcher: Varun Agrawal; Agniva Chakrabarti

The rounds started with the Claimant's side directing the tribunal towards their submissions. The judge pointed out that there might be a fundamental problem with the submission being made. However, the same was handled by the speaker very admirably. The mood of the court room changed as soon as the speaker from the Respondent's side started with their submissions. Many exhibits were submitted. The judges were not in agreement with the very first argument put forth by the speaker. This commenced a debate between the both of them.

Court Room: 2

Judges: Praharsh Johorey, Varsha Sriram

Teams

(TC4 ,SLS PUNE claimant)

(TC13, CLC, respondent)

Speaker(s):

SLS PUNE - Ram Sharma ,Avani Laad

CLC- Vinayak,Shubhangi singh

Researcher(s): SLS PUNE: Charvi Krishna, Akshat Trivedi.

CLC : Vivek Kumar, Akansha Jain

The speakers on either side posed a confident demeanour, however, the judges from the very outset asked both sides a lot of relevant questions. Though the judges tried to direct the speakers on either side towards the answers, the speakers seemed a bit nervous in their approach to the questions.

There were several questions with respect to very fundamental aspects of the problem itself which formed an important basis of the questioning of the judges.

Court Room: 2

Judges: Praharsh Johorey, Varsha Sriram

Teams

(TC4 ,SLS PUNE claimant)

(TC13, CLC, respondent)

Speaker(s):

SLS PUNE - Ram Sharma ,Avani Laad

CLC- Vinayak,Shubhangi singh

Researcher(s): SLS PUNE: Charvi Krishna, Akshat Trivedi.

CLC : Vivek Kumar, Akansha Jain

The speakers on either side posed a confident demeanour, however, the judges from the very outset asked both sides a lot of relevant questions. Though the judges tried to direct the speakers on either side towards the answers, the speakers seemed a bit nervous in their approach to the questions.

There were several questions with respect to very fundamental aspects of the problem itself which formed an important basis of the questioning of the judges.

Court room 11

The rounds started ay 10.30 AM. The claimants have begun by discussing the validity of the arbitration agreement, under the New York Convention. The speakers answer to the question of difference between strict compliance and substantial compliance brings some satisfied smiles by the judges. The claimants seem confident in clearing all the questions asked by the arbitral tribunal. The speakers very smoothly move ahead with their arguments dealing with every question asked in a professional manner. The legal authorities cited by both parties were appreciated by the judges. Judges after clarifying the time available with both the teams continue to question and grill the teams.

Courtroom 17