LIVE BLOGGING

LIVE BLOG!!

NCU LAW SCHOOL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (III EDITION) 2015, GURGAON

Untitled

Ladies and Gentleman,

We at School of Law, THE NORTHCAP UNIVERSITY, Gurgaon have the honour to present to you the III Edition of NCU Law School Moot Court Competition 2015.

NCU Law School organized the 1st edition of its National Moot Court Competition from 13th-15th March 2013, With the success of the 1st NCU Moot Court Competition, It climbed another ladder by organizing the 2nd edition of its National Moot Court Competition from 14th – 15th March 2014. The Second Edition of NCU Law School National Moot Court Competition, 2014 received tremendous response from colleges and universities throughout the country. In an attempt ensure highest quality, the number of teams participating in the event was restricted to sixteen. All participating teams represent top law schools and universities across India including six National Law Schools. In a short span of two years, NCU Law School has carved a niche for itself, as a leader in Environment Law Moot Court Competition. The NCU Law School’s National Moot, though just into its 3rd year, has already gained popularity among the law student fraternity as a one of its kind.

Moot Problem, Rules and Brochure are available HERE

AWARDS

  • Winning Team Award
  • Runner up Team Award
  • Best Speaker (Prelims/Quarters)
  • Best Speaker (Semis/Finals)
  • Best Researcher (On basis of a written researchers’ test)
  • Best Memorial
  • Online courses to all participants

19th November 2015

The Moot Court Competition officially begins tomorrow at 9:00 AM. We shall be bringing you live and exclusive updates from the inaugural session onwards! Do remember to follow us on our twitter & Facebook Pages.

Stay tuned for Updates!!!

team lexkhoj

TEAM LEXKHOJ welcomes you…

Just because you work in teams or lead teams doesn’t mean you are a good team player. To prove this, you need to recall examples from your experience.

In the best performing teams, team members share clarity of purpose.Among the various things I would like  to introduce you to the team LEXKHOJ and i would also like to say this is called team skill.

Once again a hearty welcome by team LEXKHOJ.

20th November 2015 ( DAY 1)

8:57 AM

A very Good Morning to one and All once again we welcome you all to NCU law school national moot court competition!!!

NCU Law School is very proud to host the following teams from across the country.

  • LC 2, Faculty of Law, DU
  • Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  • KIIT School of Law, Bhuwaneshwar
  • NCU Law School Dummy Team
  • National Law University, Assam
  • Symbiosis Law School, Noida
  • SDM Law College, Mangalore
  • School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore
  • Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar
  • IMS Unison University, Dehradun
  • USLLS, IP University, Delhi
  • Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala
  • SRM University, Chennai
  • School of Law, Jagran Lakecity University, Bhopal
  • UPES, Dehradun
  • Fairfield Institute of Management & TechnologyCLC,
  • Faculty of Law, DU
  • Chanakya National Law University,
  • Patna Chandigarh University
  • Raffles University, Neemrana
  • Lloyd law college, greater Noida
  • Jamia Milia Islamia University, Delhi
  • VIPS, IP University, Delhi
  • NCU law school Dummy Team

9:00 AM

Finally the suspense is about to get over and the inaugural session is about to begin!

9:10 AM

The guests have arrived and there is a welcome of GUESTS AND PARTICIPANTS at NCU LAW SCHOOL.

IMG_2620

IMG_2624

Moot Court Rooms are ready and are waiting for the moots to start.

IMG_2575(e)

10:00 AM

The event has started and we welcome Hon’ble chief Guest Prof. Dr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Director, The Indian Law Institute, New Delhi for inaugurating the III Edition of NCU Law School National Moot Court Competition. We also welcome Mr. Shams Khwaja, Supreme Court Advocate & Adjunct Prof. of Law at California University & Prof. Dr. Prem Vrat, Pro-Chancellor, The Northcap University Gurgaon.

11:00 AM

Researcher test has been started and the researcher are in full mood and energetic to attempt the test on which the the best researcher will be selected.

12232822_10205123501592550_1728150170534204684_o12265564_10205123500152514_926225210843476168_o

11:15 AM

Group photo session was held at the front garden of THE NORTHCAP UNIVERSITY.

 

IMG_2644

12:00 PM

Draw of lots  & Exchange of Memorials have taken place at Auditorium

12:10 PM

Briefing session-By Ambrina Khan(faculty school of law)

about the moot problem to the judges and the rules and regulations about the competition.

IMG_2653

12:30 PM 

Participants are well settled and the Prelims 1 is about to take place soon as per the match-ups.

SLOT 1 (PRELIMS 1)

  1. Fairfield Institute of Management & Technology VS. IMS Unison University, Dehradun
  2. SDM Law College, Mangalore VS. USLLS, IP University, Delhi
  3. VIPS, IP University, Delhi VS. LC 2, Faculty of Law, DU
  4. Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar VS .National Law University, AssaM
  5. UPES, Dehradun VS.Symbiosis Law School, Noida
  6. Symbiosis Law School, Pune VS. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala
  7. Chanakya National Law University, Patna VS. SRM University, Chennai
  8. KIIT School of Law, Bhuwaneshwar VS. School of Law, Jagran Lakecity University, Bhopal

SLOT 2 (PRELIMS 1)

  1. Raffles University, Neemrana VS CLC, Faculty of Law, DU
  2. School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore VS. Jamia Milia Islamia University, Delhi
  3. NCU Law School Dummy Team VS.Lloyd law college, greater Noida

IMG_2606

Live Blogging  by: VISHNU TANDI & YOGITA LOHIA with team LEXKHOJ at NCU LAW SCHOOL MOOT COURT COMPETITION- (photo credits- Upinder Singh)

12:40 PM

Here the wait gets over and the prelims round 1 have been started with the participants putting forth their arguments.

A BRIEF SUMMARY ABOUT THE COURT ROOMS LIVE:

COURT 1-

Fairfield Institute of Management & Technology VS. IMS Unison University, Dehradun

The first prelim round is underway and speaker 1 from the petitioner side is presenting the case. Before beginning with the issues petitioner was asked by the judges to bring into light the facts against them wherein it seems that  at some point of time petitioners were not able to satisfy the questions asked by the judges.

With permission Respondents  started their arguments with confidence and much clarity of  the case.

IMG_2675

COURT 2

SDM Law College, Mangalore VS. USLLS, IP University, Delhi

The judges were intensely going through the memorials. The counsel for petitioner- researcher was questioned about her uniform- as to why her tie is not proper- “not doing a favor on the court.”
The judges asked the petitioners to proceed.speaker 1 was quite confident. Was questioned on the facts of case. She was allotted with extra 30 seconds to wind up her arguments.speaker 2 was also very confident and judges were pretty convinced with the arguments.

Respondent-Speaker 1 Questioned on the municipal law.Counsel was allotted extra 1 minute to wind up. Speaker 2- was confident and spontaneous in answering. Was asked to show clarifications- for which they did not have a backup.

Researcher was asked to keep the evidence ready. Speaker 2 was questioned on the issue of sustainable development. There were no rebuttals.

IMG_2719

COURT 3-

VIPS, IP University, Delhi VS. LC 2, Faculty of Law, DU

Judges have arrived and the The proceedings has begun.Judges are intensely going through the memos and asked the teams to maintain decorum of the court .First Speaker of appellant side has been asked to proceed with the facts. Counsel is being questioned again & again regarding the facts & the judges are not convinced.
Speaker of petitioner is having hard time  convincing the judges on issues framed out by them.The speaker is being lambasted by the judges. The team is completely on back foot. The speakers seem extremely under confident and shaky.

respondent is stating it’s issues. Speaker from the respondent side has had a smooth sail. They are being asked about the authority they are citing and also the copy of the authority. Judges are not impressed by the authority cited by the respondent and speaker is grilled on how a unit constructed is against public interest.

Speaker 2 is stating authorities , and explaining doctrines. Judges are not satisfied by the explanation given by the speaker for the doctrine stated and they are not able to link the doctrine with the present case. Speaker 2 is having a hard time convincing the judges. He is trying to dodge the questions of the judges and the judges are not impressed.  speaker was told to proceed with prayer that respondent are not liable for allegations on them.

Appellant is raising rebuttals. No authority is being cited by them and judges are trying to shake his confident. Proceedings have come to an end and the judges are discussing among themselves regarding the evaluation of the teams.

COURT 4

Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar VS .National Law University, Assam

The round is off to an exciting start. The first speaker from the petitioners side has stepped up to the podium with a powerful  start. He seems to meeting the judges’ questions with confidence and determination, answering them quickly and effortlessly.

IMG_2696

COURT 5

UPES, Dehradun VS.Symbiosis Law School, Noida

the counsel for the petitioner impress the bench with the court mannerism speaker 1 through light on the anixious with his research and was confident by answering the ques. wherin his co-counsel was confident enough to impress the bench by the ques. raised on what is justice equity and good consecience.

Respondent put forth the Comptent arguments which seems to please the bench.

COURT 6

Symbiosis Law School, Pune VS. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala

First Speaker of the appellant side has been asked to proceed with the facts. Counsel is being questioned again & again regarding the issue which was raided by the appellant wherein she emphasis on article 32 and 21. further the judges are not convinced by
Speaker of petitioner.

respondent argued that the content of the case is not maintainable. because there is no violation of fundamental rights as argued by the respondent.The speaker is being lambasted by the judges.

COURT 7

Chanakya National Law University, Patna VS. SRM University, Chennai.

Petitioner are being stressing their arguments on the sustainable development.wherein the speaker 2 quoted article 48 A.where judges held that the river and forest are for the benefit of the public
And the speaker has successfully completed her submissions before time.

Respondent argued that they are not liable to pay the compensation as they have acted reasonably.

COURT 8

KIIT School of Law, Bhuwaneshwar VS. School of Law, Jagran Lakecity University, Bhopal

Speaker 1 was asked to directly move to the issues, appellant seemed to be confident even though he is being grilled by the judges. The Respondents speaker was very badly grilled by the judges as the arguments are not appropriate according to the judges, speaker is making contradictory arguments and is not giving a proper legal backing to her arguments.

SLOT 2 (PRELIMS 1)

 The 2ND SLOT of prelims 1 has begun and again here goes the live summary of the court rooms.

COURT 1

Raffles University, Neemrana VS CLC, Faculty of Law, DU

The preliminary round  has begin With the permission of the court Petitioners started their arguments with their respective issues. After that jugdes were questioning the petitioners. It seems that  at some point of time petitioners were not able to satisfy the questions asked by the judges.

With the permission Respondents  started their arguments with confidence and much clarity of  the case.

IMG_2706

COURT 2

School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore VS. Jamia Milia Islamia University, Delhi

The speaker 1 from the petitioner side is putting forth his arguments with great conviction by emphasizing on landmark judgment to weigh her argument.Counsel tries to show nexus b/w life fundamental right and environmental degradation. judges highlight that NGT is the concerned authority for this issue where the council bounces back and satisfy the judges.

Respondent argued and brings substantive judgment and policy explaining before the supreme court. the counsel seems to sound very technical and is through with list of cases.

COURT 3

NCU Law School Dummy Team VS.Lloyd law college, greater Noida 
Judges are  going through the memos.First Speaker of Appellant has been asked to proceed straight to issues raised and they are proceeding with arguments.Speaker is being questioned on why they going through PIL  and do they have any other relief or remedy and why is the mining  only a stand alone reason for environmental degradation!

Speaker is not supporting their arguments with any reports and authorities and speaker 1 rests.Speaker 2 is being questioned on How environmental degradation  is caused by only respondent NGO conduct ?
Counsel is being questioned again & again regarding the facts  & the judges are not convinced that how it can be possible if respondent  followed Norms and regulation as prescribed by Government. Moreover why they want to dismiss the PIL filed by appellant.

Speaker of respondent  is having hard time  convincing the judges on issues framed out by them and judges are continuously questioning them .The speaker is being lambasted by the judges but she is trying hard to convince them by giving multiple authorities.Speaker 2 is being grilled on that why judges should not compensate the people who were living there and it’s about their livelihood but the counsel is trying to dodge these questions.

The team is completely on back foot. The speakers seem extremely under confident and shaky as judges have asked them to decide between  Article 14 v. ARTICLE 38 Of constitution and why people should suffer for NGO benefits if that is causing pollution.

What a drastic change , Respondent  has Admitted and is ready to  agree with claim made by appellant and that they are ready to compensate .So straight away respondent agrees that fundamental right will prevail when there is confusion between article 38 and article 14 .No rebuttals and judges leaves as proceeding have ended.

 2:30 PM

Lunch & Break Time

IMG_2818

Preliminary Round 2

3:30 PM 

Process of Draw of lots and exchange of memorials have been started at Law Department of The Northcap University.

4:00 PM

The preliminary rounds 2 have been started and the matchups are as follows:-

Preliminary Round 2 ( Slot 1)

  1. School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore VS UPES, Dehradun
  2. Symbiosis Law School, Noida VS Jamia Milia Islamia University, Delhi
  3. IMS Unison University, Dehradun VS SDM Law College, Mangalore
  4. Lloyd law college, greater Noida VS NCU Law School Dummy Team
  5. National Law University, Assam VS Raffles University, Neemrana
  6. CLC, Faculty of Law, DU VS Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar
  7. School of Law, Jagran Lakecity University, Bhopal VS KIIT School of Law, Bhuwaneshwar
  8. SRM University, Chennai VS Chanakya National Law University, Patna

Preliminary Round 2 (Slot 2)

  1. Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala VS Symbiosis Law School, Pune
  2. USLLS, IP University, Delhi VS Fairfield Institute of Management & Technology
  3. LC 2, Faculty of Law, DU  VS VIPS, IP University, Delhi

4:00 PM

Prelims 2 has begun and again here goes the live summary of the court rooms-

COURT 1

School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore VS UPES, Dehradun

The speaker 1 from has started pleading and created a foundation for invoking fundamental rights. The counsel enlighten various statutory provisions. the judges are not satisfied and throws 2 bouncers making the counsel nervous. 2nd Speaker is lying to emphasis on the environmental policies and various landmark judgments.

Counsel for the respondent brings and emphasis facts of case in order to seek non-maintainability of PIL. Second speaker uses the Preamble and landmark cases to weight her arguments and aims to show the bonafide intention of the Respondents.

IMG_2718

COURT 2

Symbiosis Law School, Noida VS Jamia Milia Islamia University, Delhi

Speaker 1 from the Appellant side states that Hon’ble court have the jurisdiction under Art 32 of the Constitution of India to deal with the present matter. He mentioned Art 21 and other fundamental rights and their violation. Hon’ble bench asked that is government malafide? Counsel is grilled on this issue badly. Counsel for the plaintiff also cited the landmark case of M.C Mehta  vs Union of India .

Counsel for the Respondent aruged that this is a malafide because the Government did not acquire land according to Land Acquisition Act.

 

COURT 3

IMS Unison University, Dehradun VS SDM Law College, Mangalore

The petitioners  began their arguments with the court mannerism  .With the starting of the round judges were questioning the petitioners with the citing of  proper cases petitioners  for counsel was trying to clear the questions  asked by the .judges with credence .At some time petitioners seems to be that they were unable to answer the questions. with that they ended  their arguments  with prayer.

With permission counsel for respondent  started arguments with the proper court mannerism .With the very much clarity of the facts and knowledge of law counsel for respondents were trying to answer the questions asked by the judges With proper answering of the questions respondents argued well also.  There were many issues  raised for rebuttals by the petitioners on the various  Points on the violation of fundamental right, violation of  right of clean environment. later on counselfor respondents gave the contention on the rebuttle made by the petitioners smartly

COURT 4

Lloyd law college, greater Noida VS NCU Law School Dummy Team

Counsel for the Appellant attempts to prove the violation of fundamental rights and he is grilled very strongly by the judges on this point. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Respondents is not able to satisfy the judges  based on their arguments. Knowledge of the second speaker was very weak.

IMG_2699

COURT 5

National Law University, Assam VS Raffles University, Neemrana

Counsel for the Appellant could not answer the questions put up by the judges and the second speaker is adviced by the judges not to repeat the points covered by the speaker 1. The Bench does not seem completely satisfied. The Counsel for the Respondent is stumped the moment he approaches the dias. The counsel seems to be sinking deeper into the  of questions being heard at them by the bench.

COURT 6

CLC, Faculty of Law, DU VS Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar

Counsel for the Appellant was grilled on the issue relating to the concept of PSU and their rights but the counsel was not able to satisfy. On the other hand, the Respondent argued that there is no violation of fundamental right and the PIL is not maintainable. The argument in regard to unreasonable delay in filing the petition was also raised.

IMG_2801

COURT 7

School of Law, Jagran Lakecity University, Bhopal VS KIIT School of Law, Bhuwaneshwar

The main contention on behalf of the Appellant was in regard to violation of Forest Conservation Act, 1980. But the judges grilled the Counsels on the issue of sustainable development. The Respondents argued that the petition is not maintainable as the alternative remedies are available. Counsel also argued that NGT is more competent than SC to deal with this matter.

COURT 8 

SRM University, Chennai VS Chanakya National Law University, Patna

The speaker 1 from the petitioner side is putting forth his arguments with great conviction. His basic arguments are that corporate veil cannot be lifted on two separate entities and that there is no evidence of fraud. The speaker brilliantly answers all the ques of the judges and also cites case laws for his arguments.

Speaker 1 was quite spontaneous in responding. questioned on the basics of the environmental law system. Speaker 2 was confident, clear and precise with the arguments. He raised the point that if there is a violation of article 21 and briefly and concisely explained the point on what is sustainable development. Judges seemed quite satisfied with the arguments.

Preliminary Round 2 (Slot 2)

COURT 4

Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala VS Symbiosis Law School, Pune

The petitioner while arguing for violation of Article 21 contended that the tribal people are not able to sleep at night due to the industry and thus, there is no use of this development. The Respondent, on the other hand, contended that there is no villation of Article 14 and no arbitrary action was taken as it was for the welfare for the society.

COURT 5

USLLS, IP University, Delhi VS Fairfield Institute of Management & Technology

The Petitioner was grilled on the contention of Article 16 & 29 and the counsel was able to satisfy the Bench. The Respondent was heavily grilled on the point of non-reference to Biodiversity Act by them and the mining activities effecting the public interest.

COURT 6

LC 2, Faculty of Law, DU  VS VIPS, IP University, Delhi

The Speaker 1 straightaway comes to the issue of jurisdiction. Sums up the facts in a minute. The first speaker is being very submissive and satisfied the bench on the question put to him. Speaker 2 argued that government has to compensate for all the economic. The bouncer was thrown by the bench by asking whether only government or NGO?

Counsel for the Respondent argues on the facts of the case and rise of temperature is because of deforestation and not because of the industry concerned.

6: 00 PM

Preliminary Round 2 is summed up. The teams are heading for tea break and snacks. The results are awaited shortly.

6:30 PM

Results are announced. The qualified teams are:

  1. LC 2, Faculty of Law, DU
  2. National Law University, Assam
  3. KIIT School of Law, Bhuwaneshwar
  4. Symbiosis Law School, Noida
  5. School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore
  6. IMS Unison University, Dehradun
  7. Chanakya National Law University, Patna
  8. Lloyd law college, greater Noida

Congratulations to the qualified teams!!! 

6:45 PM 

Draw of lots and exchange of memorials have started. The fixtures are as follows:

  1. LC 2, Faculty of Law, DU VS. National Law University, Assam
  2. Lloyd law college, greater Noida VS. IMS Unison University, Dehradun
  3. KIIT School of Law, Bhuwaneshwar VS. Symbiosis Law School, Noida
  4. School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore VS. Chanakya National Law University, Patna

The rounds will begin shortly.

7:00 PM

The rounds have started. More updates coming soon. Stay Tuned.

COURT  1

LC 2, Faculty of Law, DU VS. National Law University, Assam

Counsel for the Appellant started with the facts of the case and then goes on to argue that development at the human cost is of no use. They were questioned on the impact of the flood and were able to satisfy the Bench. On the other hand, the Respondents contends that flood was natural act and the facts clearly state that the climatic changes were the cause of the problem.

 IMG_2843

COURT 2

Lloyd law college, greater Noida VS. IMS Unison University, Dehradun

The Appellant  began their arguments with proper citing the various cases and and authorities Speaker 1 of the counsel for petitioner spoke very well on her respective issues she was seemed to be confident in her arguments.

With permission counsel for respondent  started arguments .With the very much clarity of the facts and knowledge of law in which counsel raised many issues and  challenging the PIL.   There were many issues  raised for rebuttals by the petitioners on the various  Point. Later on counsel for respondents gave the contention on the rebuttal made by the petitioners smartly .

IMG_2859

COURT 3

KIIT School of Law, Bhuwaneshwar VS. Symbiosis Law School, Noida

The Counsel for the Appellant is grilled from the beginning on the point of Locus Standi. Almost all similar questions were raised as in the other rounds and the counsels tried their best to answer them. The Respondents tried to prove that the case was not maintainable and the matter was to be dealt by NGT.

COURT 4

School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore VS. Chanakya National Law University, Patna

The Appellant was able to satisfy the judges on the point of International Convention but did not have any answer for establishment of NGO and an Indian Act providing for the protection of tribes other than the Constitution.

The Respondents were questioned on the authority of ECA Act and Sustainable Development but they were unable to satisfy the judges completely.

8:20 PM

The quater-final rounds have ended and the teams are eagerly waiting for the results now.

8:40 PM

Yeaaahhhhh……… Finally the wait is over…..The RESULTS are out and we congrts the teams..!!!

The teams who have made it to the Semi-Finals are:

  1. National Law University, Assam
  2. School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore
  3. IMS Unison University, Dehradun
  4. KIIT School of Law, Bhuwaneshwar

we further congrts all the participants who were the part of this NCU national moot court competition.. Hope you all enjoyed the competition at school of law NCU MOOT COURT COMPETITION(3rd edition)..  Hope to see you all  next year as well.

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE TEAMS!!! 

After a long day, rounds of prelims has come to an end. All the teams have argued at least once each, either as Complainants or Respondents. team have also argued from the other side in the second round of prelims. Here are some images from the day so far. for live and exclusive do remember to follow us on our twitter & Facebook Page.

Hope all the participants had a wonderful experience and you all enjoyed this Live Blog!

 

Once again Team LEXKHOJ Congratulates all the Participants for their Excellent performances.

Greetings

TEAM LEXKHOJ! 

See you Tomorrow!

Good Night! Take Care.

21st November 2015 ( 2nd day)

10:00 AM

Hi,

A very good morning to one and all.Welcome  back to the Live blog of the 2015 NCU national Moot court competition.

We will be giving live updates for the Semi- Finals and Finals of the competition  live from  School Of Law Northcap University, Gurgaon.

We are back again to cover the Semi-finals of the competition

Stay Tuned!

10:30 AM

Teams upcoming for Semi Final’s round are as follows:

  • National Law University, Assam VS. KIIT School of Law, Bhuwaneshwar
  • School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore VS. IMS Unison University, Dehradun

11:00 AM

we are ready to start. The teams are being ready. Further the  judges are being briefed about the moot problem. There’s lot of different enthusiasm and environment.

IMG_2918

semi-finals rounds are about to start at NCU (SCHOOL OF LAW) 2015. Stay tuned for live updates….

11:45 AM

An atmosphere of excitement is being built as the audience wait in anticipation for the Panel to arrive. The participants are ready.

The Panel arrives and all rise. The Panel consists of  Advocates, Solicators General, Researchers,Partners of Corporate Firms etc..

MR. SARTHAK NAYAK

MR. DEBANSHU KHETTRY

MS. MONICA  CHUG

MR VARUN TANKHA

MR. SAMEER SODHI

MS. HRISHIKA PANDIT

12:00 PM

COURT 1

School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore VS. IMS Unison University, Dehradun

Bench has arrived and teams have started putting forth  their arguments.

IMG_2942

Respondent prays to dismiss the writ petition. Judge asked whether the environmental cases can be dealt in the supreme court if it is so then why NGT? which one is more competent.

Rebuttal on maintenance part and the onus of proof. there was a violation but alternate remedy is not a baas to present case.Further Judge asked ques on diff b/w onus of proof and Burden of proof where the counsel pleads ignorance for the same. Question of fact was also in question in Supreme Court as highlighted by the judge. what if PIL gets dismissed  what is the alternate remedy. Judges asked whether the counsel is aware about the utilitarian principles or not. Counsel further has no knowledge about the questions which are being raised apart from the facts of the case seeking ignorance on every part. wherein judge highlighted that they do not have any authority of what all they are citing. Judge raised a question to respondent that what if PIL is allowed by the supreme court who is going to compensate for it.

COURT 2

National Law University, Assam VS. KIIT School of Law, Bhuwaneshwar

Bench has  arrived and teams are ready. Appellants are briefly proceeding to the statements of facts of the case. The judges are well settled with the facts The Panel has started its questions. Panelist MR. SAMEER SODHI is now asking Speaker 1 about the jurisdiction as to whether the art 136 is applicable to the present case or not. Further the judges asked as to the provisions of the environmental law which are being violated. The speaker seems to be very confident and is being able to answers all the ques. as asked by the judges.

IMG_2934

Speaker 2 to seeks permission to proceeds towards the Bench. The judges asks the doctrine apart from public trust doctrine whether applicable to the present case or not. The counsel was not  much aware about the statues wherein he was able to cite some cases so as to justify the questions asked. counsel requested the judges to give him some extra time to wind up with his pleadings. further the judges asked him how can he rely with special reference to art. 48 and 51(c) of the constitution. counsel further pleads ignorance on certain points.

Further the respondents Speaker 1 proceeds towards the bench by seeking permission to put-forth their arguments wherein the MR VARUN TANKHA  asked to refer to the prayer. The speaker 1 was grieved with lots of questions such as whether to approach NCT and which under sections can we approach under NCT for violation of FRs. Further MR. SAMEER SODHI concluded that he sees some contradiction in the arguments. It was asked whether dust and fumes constitute pollution or not? counsel emphasis on doctrine of necessity and sustainable development for temporary period not causing air pollution. Respondents appeal the High Court under the appellant jurisdiction and H.C suggested to come up with some safety measures.

Speaker 2 first ques. raised by the judge was whether there was environmental degradation or not? counsel emphasis there was a minor degradation.counsel was very eloquent and argued well on the issue of the compensation. he satisfied the judges very well with his arguments.

further judges grilled him on the issue that why he have not cope up with the new laws.  There was rebuttals on certain points.

2:30 PM

Hence Semi-Final rounds have concluded and Enjoy the high time with Lunch.

2:35 PM

The flag is cast and finally result is out.. a long breathe for the participants now:

1

2

3

wait wait

go

go go

And the Semifinal Results are here!! Two teams competing for the Prestigious Trophy & Prizes are-

  • School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore
  • National Law University, Assam

Yeahhhhhh congratulation to the finalists

Stay tuned for live updates at NCU MOOT LIVE

3:30 PM

The judges are here and we are moving forward to see the battle for the finals. It’s going be a tough fight in front of a FIVE Judge Bench. Bench comprises of the judges,advocates solicitors general, Researchers, partners from corporate firms.

  • MR.RAVI CHAWLA
  • MR.  SARTHAK NAYAK
  • MR.AKSHAY  MEHTA
  • MR.ARVIND P BHANU 
  • MR. SUBHRADIPTA SARKAR

4:00 PM

The finals are off to an exciting start, and proceedings are in full swing. The appellants’ first speaker has started his arguments with fervor and confidence.

4:05 PM

The rapid fire questioning from the judges and the quick answers from the speaker has the audience at the edge of their seats.

4: 10 PM

Speaker 1 argues that  the petition is maintainable and Hon’ble Court have the jurisdiction to deal with the present matter. The Counsel seems very confident and well prepared.

Hon’ble judge Mr Sarkar put forward the first question i.e what do you mean by indigenous person. the counsel was very confident and was able to answer the question regarding the same.
It seem very enthusiastic as the judges and the counsel is very much copping as is able to answers all the question. Again it was asked By Hon’ble Judge Mr. Akshay Mehta that why the counsel has approached the apex court instead of  NGT.  Counsel was asked whether they were the necessity party to the case.
Hon’ble Judge MR. Chawla raised the issue of violation of fundamental rights. Counsel was also grilled on the  dicey principles by Mr. Sarkar.
Even of so much grilling the counsel seems to be very much active and confidential about what he is saying. further the counsel pleads ignorance on the point asked by judge that whether the reserved forest can be unreserved.
The arguments further taken up by speaker 2
4: 20 PM
The second speaker has stepped up undaunted, clarifying the first speaker’s arguments to reestablish their sanctity, followed by his arguments.

Petitioner dealing with Art 21. Hon’ble  judge Mr Chawla asks the counsel to draw the attention of this court towards  how the rights are being infringed.   Second question was thrown by Mr. Mehta stating that does art 19 talks about  any reasonable restrictions.  He also pointed out an contention  referred in their memo which is going against him.

 4:40 PM

Respondent seeks permission to proceeds towards the bench.. the permission was being granted.

4: 42 PM

The speaker has begun in a calm and controlled manner, and the judges are gearing up to interrogate.

She is maintaining her demeanor despite the courtroom heating up, an admirable feat considering the difficulty of the questions posed by the five judge bench.

Hon’ble Judge Mr Sarkar asks the the counsel that are they agree that there is pollution.

Mr. Chawla asks whether high court has pass certain direction n how far do you adhere to such orders counsel again seems to be very confident.
4:50 PM
Great, the competition is becoming very tough both the parties are being fighting for the trophy exciting to see such motivated people…
4:55 PM
Counsel says that right to development is the integral part where Hon’ble judge Mr Bhanu asked the counsel to give  his opinions.
Again a question put forth by Mr. Sarkar, whether there is any provision where the right to development is being defined. The counsel pleads ignorance on the point
Hon’ble Judge Mr. Sarthak asks the counsel who is the most competent party. Counsel satisfies the bench with her contention.
Mr Mehta put forth  a very simple question regarding res judicata. Counsel was able to answer the question.
Counsel further pleads for 30 second from the court to sum up her arguments.
5:00 PM
 Speaker 2 from the Respondent side take up her charge.
5:05 PM
She now moves on to her contention and argues on the aspect of environmental pollution and establishes that there is no role of the respondent’s industry in pollution.
5:10 PM

The counsel is nervous and anxious since the bench is tossing her with a bunch of questions one after the other.

5:20 PM

TIME FOR REBUTTALS !!

Wow!! This is interesting

Counsel from both the sides are heavily grilled in rebuttals.

The teams have put forward there best effort and knowledge before this Honorable court, Fingers crossed … waiting for results …… Stay tuned .

6:00 PM

Everyone is now assembling for the Valedictory Ceremony.

6:10 PM

Valedictory Ceremony has started and the dignitaries for this function are-

  • Prof. (Dr.) Sanoj Rajan, Professor & Dean, School of Law Ansal University
  • Mr. Ravi Chawla, Advocate
  • Mr. Sarthak Nayak, Advocate, Supreme Court of India
  • Prof.( Dr.) Praveen Kumar Lochab, Officiating Head of Department, NCU Law School

6:15 PM

Prof. (Dr.) Sanoj Rajan, Professor & Dean, School of Law Ansal University addresses the gathering by congratulating participants for their dedicated & enthusiastic approach to the moot & the MCC Members for the success of NCU Law School Moot Court Competition (III Edition) 2015.
6:20 PM
While addressing the gathering Advocate Ravi Chawla states that to turn case in favor, you have three option- convince the judge, confuse the judge or corrupt the judge but i do not advise you to access  the third option
6:25 PM
Mr. Sarthak Nayak, address the gathering by congratulating all the participants. He specially thanks to the faculty for making this event successful.
6:30 PM  
Prof.( Dr.) Praveen Kumar Lochab, Officiating Head of Department, NCU Law School addressed the gathering and disclosed the name of the student who drafted this moot problem.
6:35 PM
Ms Ambrina Khan (Faculty, School of Law) takes the dais to reveal the most awaited moment of the event.

6:36 PM

The Results of the Finals are out!
Winners of the NCU LAW SCHOOL MOOT COURT COMPETITION (III EDITION) 2015 is SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST UNIVERSITY BANGALORE 

while 

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, ASSAM 

take away the Runners Up trophy.

IMG_3075

WINNING TEAM

IMG_3072

RUNNER UP TEAM

The other citations awarded are as follows:

  • Best ResearcherJitin Ahuja, LC 2, Faculty of Law, DU
  • Best Speaker (Prelims/Quarters)– Saunya Sawhney, School of Law Christ University
  • Best Speaker (Semis/Finals)Shaunak Kumar Rajguru, KIIT School of Law, Bhuwaneshwar
  • Best Memorial Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala

Congratulations by TEAM LEXKHOJ to all the winners and thanks to everyone who participated in this Moot Court Competition

6:50 PM

Vote of thanks by Ms. Pallavi Bajpai ( Asst. Professor and Faculty Moot Court Coordinator, NCU Law School)

 

This Live Blogging would not have been possible without the  most brilliant team of LEXKHOJ.

With this, the live Blogging Team Signs Off

IMG_2890

Waiting to see you all next year……..

TEAM LEXKHOJ:

  • Vishnu Tandi
  • Sukriti Ghai
  • Upinder Singh
  • Yogita Lohia
  • Rohan Seth
  • Parul Sethi
Advertisements