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

Courtroom 3

Speaker 1 of the Claimant begins with his first issue. The judges' questions are answered with great points supported by legal authorities which completely convince the judges. The Claimants proceed to the next issue which is regarding the disclosure. Yet again another judgment is presented to the judges in support of their claim but it doesn't convince the judges much. The next issue is whether the ministry of power should be a party to the arbitration. The judges critically respond to the arguments but seem quite impressed by the Claimants' responses.

Court No 2

Court room 2:

16:50- The second leg of the rounds have begun. Mr.Sagnik Das, being the drafter of the problem, presents daunting questions for the Counsels to answer

His knowledge of all the nitty gritties of the problem makes his questions all the more challenging.

Arguing on the jurisdiction of the forum, the counsel on behalf of the Respondents contends that the parties never intended to arbitrate the issue. This is getting interesting!

Court room 4

The counsel proceeds with the arguments of his first issue but the judges surprise him by directing him to proceed with the second issue as they are already satisfied with regards to with the first issue.

Complying with the same, the speaker moves on ahead, unfettered and confident to put forward his arguments and takes on all the questions posed for him. The counsel was questioned as to why the Claimants opted for arbitration before negotiation and the counsel tried to answer the same but the judges seemed unsatisfied. The counsel also tried to rely on Singaporean case laws but the judges maintained that those cases won't be applicable in the present case and were unimpressed.

Court room 3

The arguments get heated and the judges participate actively. The next question that arises is whether the tribunal is obliged to ask for a disclosure of the third party or whether it is just a good practice. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking and the judges are still not satisfied with the arguments made.

Court room 1

The claimants have relied on several judgments to demonstrate how Singapore Arbitration Centre is often used in place of SIAC. The claimants also talked about 3 essential requirements of a valid contract between parties.

The claimants' arguments were heavily based on the very basics of contracts.

Mr. Johorey is continuously grilling the participants and barging them with questions.

Court room 4

Judges- Bishen Jeswant, Ankur Khandelwal, Rajeswari Mukherjee

Claimant

Team code- TC 16

Speakers-

1.Sethupathy

2.Rathna Kumar B

3. Aishwaryaa

Researchers-

Sreelakshmi

Sashinyaa

Respondents

Team code- TC 35

Speakers:

1. Kopal

2. Surabhi Chaudhary

Researcher

1. Muskan

The round is about to start and the teams have mutually decided that the Claimant will start with their arguments first. The judges have also presented a strict front by making it clear that they won't be granting any extensions.

The round begins with a bang of questions, some tougher than the others but the teams are in their zone and are answering the questions meticulously.

Courtroom no 2

Court room no: 3

Judges:

Addway Bandhopadhyaya

Shreya Sircar

Nandita Chauhan

Teams:

Claimant

TC 37

NUALS Kochi

Speaker 1- Abhishek Lalwani

Speaker 2- Abhishek Jamalpur

Researchers- Anubhav Sharma and Puru Barma

Respondent

TC- 4

SLS Pune

Speaker 1- Ram Sharma

Speaker 2- Avani Laad

Researchers- Charvi Krishna and Akshat Trivedi

The quater final round begins! The respondents start out with their first submission which is questioned by the judges. The judge questions the principle of contra proferentum and the presence of ambiguity in the contract.

COURT ROOM- 2

Judges- 1)Manini Brar
               2)Ashish Virmani
                3) Sagnik Das

Claimant

Team code- 31 (HNLU)

Speaker- 1) Nikhil Kumar
                2) Rohil Kenue

Resarcher- 1)Aviral Tripathi
                  2)Vanshay Kaul

Respondent

Team code- 2 (ILS,Pune)

Speaker- 1) Tapan Radkar
                2) Advait Helekar

Researcher- 1) Monica Bagwe
                       2)Trishalaa Shetty

The Quarterfinals have now started, with the Counsels for both sides eager to present their submissions before our esteemed judges. The pressure inside the courtrooms is almost tangible, as the Respondent proceeds with his speech regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. A lot of questions being are being raised by the judges, but the counsels seem to be cruising past them comfortably. The quarters seem to be far more demanding and it is evident that the cousels are indeed giving their best of arguments.