[DAY-4] 8th NLUO - Bose & Mitra & Co. International Maritime Arbitration Moot 2021
Updated: Apr 20
11th April 2021
SEMI FINAL ROUNDS
ILS Law College, Pune
School of Law, Christ University
9:15 One last hurdle to cross before the teams reach their ultimate goal – the Finals! We’re here at the Semi-Finals today and the teams look geared up to give it their best shot. To reach the Finals, the teams will have to impress a bench comprising Mr. Aditya Krishnamurthy and Mr. Ashwin Shanker.
9:17 Speaker 1 for the Respondents begins his submissions but is soon interrupted by Mr. Aditya. He asks the speaker to present their letter of subrogation to back their claim. The speaker states that there is no such material on record. Predictably, the Arbitrator is not satisfied. He further asks the speaker to differentiate between subrogation and assignment. The speaker seems a little unsure but stutters out an answer with the assistance of his researcher. He is then allowed to proceed. The discussion now moves on to the procedural issue on hand.
9:25 Mr. Aditya again interrupts Speaker 1 asking whether the SCMA arbitration is ad hoc or institutional. The speaker confidently states ad-hoc and is immediately informed by the arbitrator that he’s misinformed. The speaker retorts it is immaterial whether the arbitration is ad-hoc or institutional. Oh, the gal! He is repeatedly being asked conceptual questions, the answers to which he is not aware of if we go by the nervous tone in his voice. However, the speaker cleverly diverts the discussion back towards the facts of the case study and is saved. Phew!
9:32 Proceeding with his substantive arguments, Speaker 1 for the Respondents completes his submissions without any further interruptions. So far, so good.
9:33 It is now time for Speaker 1 for the Claimants to make his submissions on two issues – the number of arbitrators to be appointed in the present case and whether the claimants are entitled to sue. The Arbitrators interrupt him by asking whether the consignee should be a necessary party. Speaker 1 has not even started answering the question when the Arbitrators pick his words and start correcting his understanding. It doesn’t look like Speaker 1 is off to a good start at all. Nevertheless, the round continues.
9:40 Mr. Ashwin interjects the speaker again who is by now completely flustered. The arbitrator asks him if the insurance company shouldn’t be suing in its own name. The speaker deflects the answer stating that he’ll answer it ‘crisply’ soon. Not sure if that’s the best approach but the Arbitrator accepts it for now.
9:43 The Arbitrators do not cut the speaker any slack who is made to substantiate his every argument as Mr. Aditya puts Speaker 1’s conceptual knowledge to the ultimate test. The speaker is next interrupted when he is arguing that the Respondents are the lawful owners of the Bill of Lading. He relies on a judgement but Mr. Aditya interjects stating that the Claimants’ entire claim is an afterthought. It is quite clear that the Bank passively consented to the customer taking delivery of the cargo. The speaker has a ready answer and quickly directs the Arbitrator to the fact sheet.
9:51 Mr. Aditya questions the speaker on the difference between the Indian Bill of Lading Act, 1856 and the Indian COGSA, 1992. Without pausing for a breath, he next asks what does a lawful holder even mean. The counter-questions keep coming and Speaker 1 has no choice but to keep saying “Indeed, Mr. Arbitrator” an alarming number of times. Yikes! In fact, at one point, the conversation goes such:
Mr. Aditya: Where, where, where, please show me! Speaker 1: Indeed, Mr. Arbitrator. Mr. Aditya: No, show me. 1 second.
Mr. Aditya finally acknowledges he is splitting hairs at this point and the round continues.
10:01 Speaker 1 is interrupted one last time when he’s asked to differentiate between title and proprietorship. The Arbitrators do not accept the speaker’s answer but allow for a time extension of 1 minute allowing Speaker 1 to summarize his submissions. Although he gets an extension, the speaker does not get an opportunity to speak! His time ends with Mr. Aditya correcting him on his ‘ownership rights’ point. He states that the Claimants are not the owners but only the financiers. Speaker 1 does not have a response to that. Speaker 2 for the Claimants now takes the floor.
10:09 Speaker 2 is not faring any better than Speaker 1 as she is asked numerous conceptual questions, such as the difference between a house bill of lading and a master bill of lading. She pleads ignorance to all of them. She is next tested on her knowledge of the Hague Rules.
10:17 At one point, Speaker 2 is interrupted by Mr. Aditya who states, “Madam, you’re contradicting your colleague’s arguments!” She replies. “Umm, yes Mr. Arbitrator. To answer your question, umm…”. Mr. Aditya asks her to go back to her submissions and onwards she goes.
10:23 Speaker 2 is next quizzed on the COGSA, 1972 and is asked to locate a provision which states instances when the Act will have the force of law. Two counter questions immediately follow up. Speaker 2 is successful in answering them. Phew! A welcome relief.
10:27 The fulcrum of the Claimants’ third submission is that Article 3, Rule 8 of the Hague Rules will be enforceable in the Bill of Lading in the present case. Mr. Aditya asks for a case law to back the argument. She provides the same and is allowed to proceed to her fourth submission that deals with the compensation point.
10:31 Onto her fourth submission and Speaker 2 is stuttering badly. She braves through her nerves and makes a compelling point. This is her first submission wherein she has a smooth run with hardly any interruptions. Her arguments over, Speaker 1 for the Respondents returns to the floor to complete his arguments.
10:38 Speaker 1 starts by stating that cost-saving is not a valid point to consider for the appointment of a sole arbitrator. Surprisingly, he goes on to make further points without being intercepted by the most active Arbitrators’ panel.
10:42 The peace does not last long in this courtroom, that’s for sure. Mr. Aditya is not taking any prisoners today. He exclaims, “You’re not understanding my question, counsel. You have parted with the goods without surrender of the Bill of Ladings and that makes you directly liable!” Speaker 1 holds his composure and directs the Arbitrator’s attention to Section 2(1)(c),COGSA, 1992. The Arbitrators do not accept the answer all the while questioning the applicability of the section to the present fact sheet. A heavy debate ensues.
10:51 Speaker 1 has moved on to his submissions regarding the Claimant’s right to sue. The round of questioning continues. Allegations are made and light is thrown on the fact the the case study is silent on whether the Bill of Lading was produced before the parties or not. Mr. Aditya, after some time has passed discussion the nuances of the delivery of the Bill of Ladings, hotly remarks, “You’re splitting hairs with the facts which I believe is beyond the scope of this moot. Please, next contention, Counsel.” Ouch!
10:59 Speaker 1 has not yet recovered from the last blow and is still making his last argument when Mr. Aditya retorts, “No! You’re absolutely wrong. What makes you say that? Where is the authority to back you up?” The speaker, not having an appropriate response, deflects and continues on with his submissions.
11:01 Speaker 2 for the Respondents now takes the floor. Here's to hoping it all smooths out from here on out. Some time later, he is quizzed on his knowledge of the contra preferentum rule. Mr. Aditya, not completely pleased with his answer, goes on to explain the rule to the speaker who listens on nervously.
11:07 Proceeding with his second submission with regard to the application of the Hague Rules, Speaker 2 begins with pointing fingers at the Inspection Report given in the case study. He is quickly shot down by Mr. Aditya who remarks, "Please argue on law and not facts which are so muggy, they do not warrant any discussion, Counsel." And there goes Speaker 2's entire second submission. How unfortunate!
11:14 The speaker is next questioned on res ipsa loquitur by the Arbitrators. A follow up question is asked on the 'inherent vice' of the goods. The speaker answers incorrectly and Mr. Aditya is quick to explain the concept to him. The discussion now moves on to the liability of the Respondents under tort law.
11:19 The discussion circles back to the Inspection Report and Speaker 2 speaks uninterrupted for quite some time. The Respondents breathe a collective sigh of relief! He sums up his arguments and it is now time for rebuttals.
11:26 Speaker 1 for the Claimants takes the floor but Mr. Aditya interjects. It seems as if the Claimants have misinterpreted one of the Respondents' submissions. Speaker 1 is asked to justify his remarks and he finds himself in a fix! He reiterates that he has 4 points to make in his rebuttals and so he may be allowed to proceed. The Arbitrators are gracious enough to grant him the permission. The rebuttals continue.
11:29 Speaker 1 for the Claimants makes his final point regarding the inability of the Respondents to follow international trade practices. It is now time for the sur-rebuttals.
11:31 Speaker 2 for the Respondents starts confidently but ends up stressing on the wrong facts. Alleging that each party had a Bill of Lading falls flat on the speaker's face as the Arbitrators shake their heads and reject his arguments. Mr. Aditya lets out a chuck and reminds the speaker to focus on the law and not facts that are murky. The speaker nods his assent and finishes his sur-rebuttals. The Arbitrators now thank both the teams and retire to their room for caucus. It is finally time for them to decide who proceeds to the ultimate battle. We wish both the teams the best of luck! May the odds be ever in their favour.
Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab
Government Law College, Mumbai
12:16 The crescendo tempo is building, as are the jitters, with the four teams inching closer to the finish line. This session of semi-finals will see the clash of the titans, RGNUL, Patiala and Government Law College, Mumbai. The teams will be proving their mettle to the panel comprising the Honourable Arbitrators; Mr. Aditya Krishnamurthy and Mr. Ashwin Shanker.
12:18 The round begins! The Speaker 1 from RGNUL takes the floor and begins with her submissions. She is at her best poised self. She carefully lays down the structure of her arguments for the ease of the Arbitrators and seeks permission to proceed with her first submission.
12:25 Well looks like the Arbitrators already have concerns. They don’t allow her to proceed with her submissions and question the very locus standi of the claimants for the present dispute. The Speaker seems to have an answer ready and she answers perfectly.
12:27 You cannot choose to follow the SCMA rules as per your will and not entirely! You have to abide by all the provisions of the SCMA if you choose to refer to it! Looks like Arbitrator Aditya Krishnamurthy will not accept this.
12:30 Arbitrator Krishnamurty is successful in derailing the Speaker as he asks the Speaker to throw some light on the position of the Indian law in the present issue. The Speaker clearly did not expect this question and flutters through her notes as she tries to recall. Finally, she pleads ignorance on the position of the Indian law citing the reason that it is not relevant, to which Arbitrator Krishnamurthy relies that the Singaporean and the Indian law have similar positions, and therefore the relevancy cannot be questioned.
12:32 Seems like the Arbitrators are more interested in knowing the fundamental and the conceptual clarity of the Speaker than her arguments. It has been almost 12 minutes since the Speaker has started her submissions, but she still has not been able to begin her arguments. Only if she knew that she will not be able to stick to that little roadmap of her submissions she drew in the beginning.
12:35 Mere adopting the rules doesn’t expressly require the follow of number of arbitrators required according to Section 9. This answer finally enables the judge to mute their microphone. Phew! Let’s see how many minutes/ seconds this lasts!
12:36 Finally, the Speaker is allowed to return to her transcript as she begins addressing her contentions. Let’s enjoy the silence from the Arbitrators, while it lasts.
12:42 Arbitrator Krishnamurthy interrupts the Speaker as he very confidently claims that
“Possession of the goods doesn’t give you the right to sue. You’re at the highest, a pledgee and you have no ownership whatsoever.”
This question was quite capable for rattling a claimant, but looks like our Speaker is ready with a case law to substantiate her stance. The Arbitrator is satisfied.
12:46 This marks the end of the Speaker 1’s time and she now yields the floor to her co-counsel to rest their case. She seems sufficiently confident, but equally cautious, given the veracity by which her co-counsel was grilled. We don’t blame her! She begins with her submissions.
12:48 2 minutes into her speech, she is interrupted by Arbitrator Krishnamurthy as he begins asking a series of questions on the applicability of Hague Rules on the present case, where he stresses on the fact that Hague Visby rules should be applicable. When she is able to rule out the application of the Hague Visby Rules, the Arbitrator claims that just because Hague Visby rules are not applicable, how does that make the applicability of the Hague Rules valid? To this, the Speaker refers the Arbitrator to the clarifications of the Case Study to substantiate her point. After some more arguments on the same, the Speaker hears the three golden words from the Arbitrator, i.e.
“Okay! Perfect! Proceed”
What a relief and happiness on the faces of the claimants!
12:55 The Arbitrator now asks the Speaker to refer to the Point 4 of the Survey Report, wherein he claims that it was all hearsay and there is no probative and admissible value of such a report. The lines on the forehead of the speaker is indicative of the fact that she was in no position to expect such a question. She then tried to refer the Arbitrators to other points of the Survey Report in order to defend herself. But it is not acceptable to the Arbitrator as he is firm in his stance.
13:03 If one were to sum up the condition of the CR at this point, it would go like this:
The Claimants keep bowling their best arguments to Arbitrator Krishnamurty on the crease, who hits all of them out of the park! Dire situation for the claimants.
13:07 The Arbitrators in the best of their knowledge are trying to haul and confuse the speaker, but little do they know that the speaker is in her best state of calmness and anxiety is not one of her emotions.
13:09 Given the fact that Arbitrator Krishnamurty is pretty tough to convince and how he is almost never satisfied, it is really funny how the Speaker literally pauses for a moment in utter disbelief when he actually says the words like
“Perfect and Proceed”
13:15 Seems like the Arbitrators are not that tough when it comes to giving extension. They are gracious enough to grant almost 7 minutes of extension.
Arbitrator Krishnamurty: “Since you are such a fan of the Hague Rules, can you please refer to Article IV.5 of the Hague Rules?”
The Speaker smiles as she knows that the Arbitrator has caught a weak spot. But kudos to her as she is able to dodge the weak spot and satisfy the Arbitrator.
13:20 Finally, the Claimants rest their case and now the Speaker 1 from GLC, Mumbai takes the floor to defend the allegations put forth by the Claimants.
13:27 The most impressive quality of Speaker 1 from GLC has to be her patience. She carefully listens to all the questions the Arbitrators have to ask instead of jumping to answers abruptly. She is really articulate. She seems to have a good throw of voice and has a well structured content. Let’s see how long she can maintain this.
13:32 Arbitrator Krishnamurty asks whether the Goods are identified or unidentified? To this, the speaker contends that in the present case, the goods are ascertained. She points some case laws and rules to substantiate the same and the Arbitrator is satisfied.
13:38 A heated debate goes on the nature of the bill of lading. This might sound too good to be true, but Arbitrator Krishnamurty is actually silent while he intently listens to the arguments of the Speaker. I’m afraid that it’s a perfect example of ‘Calm before the storm.’
13:48 After a very engaging time with the Speaker 1, it is now time for the Speaker 2 to fill her shoes and rest the case. He begins with his submissions. He is clear, concise and crisp. He seems like he knows his stuff too well, so he will not give a chance to the Arbitrators to derail him from his track of arguments.
“It is not the fault of the containers and they were sea worthy. It is the clear fault of the refrigeration facilities, and not ours.”
This statement is like the Bible of the Respondents and they shall not deviate from this.
“Counsel, your oral submissions are contrary to your written submissions.”
Arbitrator Shanker says this as he points out a fallacy in the written submission of the respondents. But looks like there is nothing that can shake the firm grip of the Speaker in his submissions. Let’s hope this rigidity does not result otherwise.
14:15 Well, gladly, the Speaker was able to justify the alleged fallacy in their written submission and satisfy the Arbitrators at the same time. Master Class!
14:15 Well, gladly, the Speaker was able to justify the alleged fallacy in their written submission and satisfy the Arbitrators at the same time. Master Class!
14:20 The Speaker is almost about to leave the floor, having concluded his submissions, when he is surprised with a series of questions by Arbitrator Ashwin Shanker. He answers each of the questions properly and only then he is allowed to leave the floor. Phew!
14:26 It is now the time for rebuttals. Nobody expected the Arbitrators to raise concerns during the rebuttals. It is a good thing that the Claimants reserved 5 minutes for the rebuttals.
“I think the time is nearing to end. Just hit the nail in the head and conclude”
– Arbitrator Krishnamurty makes this comment as he is satisfied with the Claimant’s rebuttals.
14:29 Amazing surr-rebuttals by the Respondents where they full on attack the case laws cited by the Claimants. They are very clear as they do so.
14:33 With this, we come to an end of the semi-finals. Well, we sympathise with the judges as they have a very very tough time to decide the winners of the rounds. May the Best team take the seat for the finals!
THE TEAMS WHO HAVE QUALIFIED FOR THE FINAL ROUNDS ARE:
GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, MUMBAI
ILS LAW COLLEGE, PUNE
We heartily congratulate all the finalists.
GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, MUMBAI vs ILS LAW COLLEGE, PUNE
It is the time for the Final Rounds of the 8th IMAM 2021! The nervousness is in the air. This is the final leg! It will be a tough tussle between two of the strongest opponents of this edition of IMAM. i.e. the team from GLC, Mumbai and ILS, Pune. Let’s see who wins the coveted prize!
The Finale Session starts with a screening of a video briefing the Arbitrators on the case study of the present edition.
16:31 And so it begins. The Speaker 1 of the Claimants, represented by GLC Mumbai, takes the floor to submit her arguments for the last time. She sure looks confident and poised. Despite her being under the weather, she powers through it and calmly takes the panel through her arguments.
16:37 Arbitrator Andrew Tettenborn seeks to clarify whether there exists a Bill of Lading under COGSA. The Speaker, having made her way through four preliminary rounds, a quarter final round and a semi-final round, answers the question promptly and correctly. A follow up question is again asked, which is satisfactory too.
“That makes the issue much clear. Thank You, Counsel.”
These words from Arbitrator Andrew Tettenborn boosts the confidence of the Speaker and brings a smile on the faces of the Claimant team.
16:42 Arbitrator Andrew Tettenborn again interrupts the speaker to throw light on the fact that the Bank was merely in the possession of the Bill of Lading as security and they did not own the same. The speaker, in order to satisfy the Arbitrator’s query, relies on a case law with similar facts and stresses on the fact that the endorsement of the Bill of Lading was personal to the Bank.
“We rely on the liability of breach as well as the liability of conversion”
The Speaker from the Claimant’s side clarifies.
16:49 This marks the end of the submissions of Speaker 1 and she yields the floor and the remainder of her time to rebuttals. Speaker 2 takes the floor and begins with laying out the structure he will be following for his submissions.
16:55 Arbitrator Andrew Tettenborn interrupts the speaker for seeking a clarification on a case he relied on. He says that the case he cited involved a deliberate breach on the part of the respondents, which is not the present case and thus it renders the application of the said case invalid. The Speaker, in response to this concern, refers the panel to the case study and the addendum in order to establish that the respondents, in this case, in fact had the knowledge of the breach, thus making it a deliberate breach. This perfectly addressed and satisfied the Arbitrator’s concern.
17:00 Arbitrator Amitava Majumdar seeks a clarification on the responsibility of the warehouse for the damage occured. The speaker proves the responsibility by citing them to the Inspection Certificate, Survey Report and the case study. He also states that according to the case study, the respondents have agreed that such responsibility was accrued to the warehouse.
17:09 Arbitrator Andrew Tettenborn asks,
“If all the Hague rules are not compulsorily applicable, what is to stop the carriers from excluding their liability under the same?”
The speaker has an answer for the same, rather a ‘simple answer’, in his words. His answer perfectly answers the query.
17:12 Arbitrator Simon Baughen asks whether the Bank can make a profit at the present situation. The speaker seems to misunderstand and dodge the question and he answers something unrelated. Arbitrator Amitava Majumdar again brings him back to the question, after which the Speaker addresses the concern. Not sure if the Arbitrators were satisfied as they asked a follow up question.
17:18 The Speaker then proceeds to conclude by urging the bench to allow a compound interest on their amount. This marks the end of the Claimant’s submission. The Arbitrator Amitava Majumdar recalls Speaker 1 back to the floor and asks,
“How do you bring the duty of the carrier to you, when on the date of damage, you did not have a title for the same ?”
The Speaker tries to answer the same by relying on the law of contracts, which is not acceptable by the Arbitrator as they claim that since a case was made under the Law of Torts, it must be answered likewise. This rattles the speaker for a moment, but she gathers herself and answers the same, thus satisfying the Arbitrator.
17:21 The floor is now open for the Respondents as now is their last chance to defend all the allegations and claims put forth by the Claimants. The Speaker 1 from ILS Pune takes the floor and begins his submissions by laying down a roadmap on the issues he and his Co-Counsel shall be dealing with. Let’s hope he is allowed to stick to that.
17:25 Arbitrator George Leloudas questions the relevance and application of the Arbitration Act of Singapore. The Speaker misunderstands the concern and gives a dissatisfactory answer. But, on further clarification, he answers correctly and satisfies the query raised.
17:32 Following up on such observation, Arbitrator Andrew Tettenborn seeks an authority which says that if no immediate protest is raised, the carriers will not be liable.
The Speaker cites two cases and satisfies the concern perfectly.
Arbitrator Amitava Majumdar- “Do you have an authority which supports your stance regarding the liability of the tort of conversion?” Speaker- “Yes, I have two Chinese case laws which says the same.” Arbitrator Amitava Majumdar- “Is it binding on us?” Speaker- “Mr. Arbitrator, since this is an arbitration proceeding, nothing is binding, everything has persuasive value.” Arbitrator Andrew Tettenborn- “The Chinese do not recognise the liability of conversion in their tort law. We are open to persuasion, but you have a very steep hill to climb.” Speaker- “Thank you Mr. Arbitrator. The counsel is determined to climb this hill.”
17:48 The Speaker 1 concludes his submissions and invites his co-counsel to rest their case. Being the last speaker of the day, she sure has taken notes on how to tackle the questions and the general environment of the Courtroom. She begins her submissions with good pace and flow. Let’s hope that the Arbitrators show a little mercy on her as compared to her Co-Counsel.
18:00 “Assuming and not accepting”. This seems to be the mantra of the Respondents.
18:12 The speaker is rather uninterrupted. Seems like our wishes before have paid off. She, without much interruption, concludes her submission. The judges seem fairly satisfied.
18:15 The Speaker 2 from the Claimant takes the floor for the rebuttals. He attacks each and every contention of the Respondents and doesn’t leave any room for ambiguities. He even addresses the point of the respondents wherein they blamed the Claimants for not raising any protest on the delivery. We could see some nods at this point. Surely a great rebuttal.
18:19 An equally well surr-rebuttal marks the end of the Finale of the 8th NLUO Bose & Mitra & Co. International Maritime Arbitration Moot, 2021.
Both the teams have their anxiety levels on peak as they wait for the valedictory session. May the best team win!
“There are always new, grander challenges to confront and a true winner will embrace each one” – Mia Hamen, 2021
GRAND FINALE CONCLUDES!
The most awaited moment of Valedictory Ceremony and the announcement of results will be live streamed on our Facebook Page at 18:30 (IST).
The valedictory ceremony can be watched live on our Facebook Page.
THE PRIZES FOR 8TH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA BOSE & MITRA & CO. INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ARBITRATION MOOT 2021 ARE AS FOLLOWS:
BEST MEMORIAL: RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW, PUNJAB
BEST SPEAKER: RAJ RISHI, SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST UNIVERSITY
RUNNERS UP: ILS LAW COLLEGE, PUNE
WINNERS: GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, MUMBAI
The 8th edition of the prestigious National Law University Odisha Bose & Mitra & Co International Maritime Arbitration Moot (IMAM) 2021 conducted from 8th-11th April saw 20 enthusiastic teams worldwide competing in Virtual oral rounds. This four-day event was only made possible by the participating teams’ sheer perseverance, who gave it their all to win the ultimate prize – the winner’s title. Now, we would be remiss if we did not thank the Organizing Committee, who have been working tirelessly to make this event such a success. We would also like to applaud our judges without whom this event could not have been possible. Maritime law being such a niche area, we’re sure the participating teams gained a lot from their exposure to such industry stalwarts. We’ve immensely enjoyed having the judges with us and hope we’ll meet them again next year, preferably under better circumstances!
When we say the teams gave it their best shot, we mean it wholeheartedly. The last four days witnessed the participants having all sorts of aces up their sleeves. The judges requited, and it made our day. One courtroom witnessed a team quoting Benjamin Frankin to the judges’ bench to make a convincing compensation argument! Well, we don’t know if the trick worked, but the judges were surely amused when the speaker, with a twinkle in her eye, spoke, “Money makes money. And the money that money makes, makes more money.” Yet another courtroom witnessed a judge rejecting a case law while calmly retorting, “I would’ve taken your arguments if we were in 1921, Counsel, but we’re not.” Not a single person was spared, and it had us grinning. But as all good things must come to an end, so does this event. With the final rounds over, we had the valedictory ceremony, followed by a vote of thanks.
As we conclude our successful journey through the four days of intensive rounds, we would like to take this opportunity to thank our title sponsors, Bose & Mitra & Co., our Associate partner Institute of International Shipping and Trade Law, Swansea University, our Resource Partner Asian Institute of Alternative Dispute Resolution, our Global partner Singapore Chambers of Maritime Arbitration, our supporting organization CIArb- India Branch, our knowledge partner Informa Law and our exclusive Media Partners SCC Online and Eastern Book Company for their unwavering support during these testing times. We would also like to thank our Vice-Chancellor Prof. Ved Kumari and our Registrar, Prof. (Dr.) Yogesh Pratap Singh for their continuous support.
We would also like to express our humble gratitude to Prof. Andrew Tettenborn, Chair in Law(LLM Shipping and Trade Law), IITSL, Swansea University; Prof. Simon Baughen, Professor (Maritime Law), IITSL, Swansea University; & Dr George Leloudas, Associate Professor, IITSL Swansea University, who drafted the problem for this year’s IMAM.
We would also thank all members of the Core Committee and The Moot Society, who worked tirelessly behind the stage to make the IMAM a grand success.
We would also like to thank our Live Bloggers team – Aastha Singh, Ananya Sharma, Anjali Soni, Apurva Vats, Harsha Tiwari, Khushi Agarwal, Shreya Kapoor, and Sneha Rath. We especially thank Abhinav Singh Chauhan, Devansh Sehgal and Sushmit Mandal, who kept this blog running, providing real-time updates.
See you again next year. Till then, Adios!