top of page
  • Live updates - 7th NLUO IMAM 2020

9th NLUO - Bose & Mitra & Co. International Maritime Arbitration Moot 2022- LIVE (SFs and Finals)

The National Law University Odisha is pleased to welcome you to the live blogging of the Virtual Oral Rounds of 9th Bose & Mitra & Co. International Maritime Arbitration Moot (IMAM) 2022. This event is organized in collaboration with our Academic Partners,

The Institute of International Shipping and Trade Law, Swansea University; our Global Partners Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration; our Knowledge Partner Informa Law; our Resource Partner The Asian Institute of Alternative Dispute Resolution.

We will make it a point that you feel as involved as ever during this journey where talented mooters will go through the emotions of ecstasy, heartbreak, delight, shock, surprise all within 4 days. For keeping tabs on regular updates regarding IMAM, we encourage you to follow us on our Social Media Handles Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter for more regular insights. We wish the participating teams the very best of luck! May the odds be ever in your favor!


DAY 4 | 27TH MARCH 2022



Semi-Final 1

A - Chanakaya National Law University, Patna (Team Code: 902)

R - The School of Excellence in Law, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University (Team Code: 926)


8:55: Welcome one, welcome all! We have finally made it to the last day of the 9th National Law University International Maritime Arbitration Moot! Over the course of the last 3 days, we have had a lot of arguments submitted, a lot of questions raised by our esteemed judges, and some skillful display of mooting by various students. Now, we are down to the 4 best teams, the 4 teams that will fight for the trophy that matters the most. These 4 teams will give it their all to win! And we have the privilege to witness them going hammer and tongs in their pursuit of success!

9:03: The first semi-finals of NLUO IMAM starts on an exciting note with the first speaker of claimants beginning confidently with his introductory comments.

9:05: The Counsel clearly and concisely lays before the panel arguments for the nature of the arbitration agreement between the parties and the precedence of their agreement over lex arbitri.

9:08: The Counsel seems to be thoroughly prepared which is evident from his presentation of various case laws and understanding of relevant jurisprudence to defend the claimants' position for appointment of multiple arbitrators as per the SCMA rules.

9:11: The Counsel responds to the judge's question on the compelling nature of the lex arbitri vis-a-vis their agreed terms of arbitration by pointing the judges' attention to the arbitration agreement itself. He argues that the wording of the Bill of Lading clearly delineates the parties' intention to be bound by the SCMA rules.

9:15: The counsel proceeds to his next issue on the inability of the respondents to limit their liability. Rule 9 of the Hague Rules imposes a liability on the respondents which is a mandatory provision in nature. The judges seem satisfied with this argument and the Counsel is allowed to proceed.

9:18: The Counsel highlights the liability of Tawe as a bailee to ensure that the sub-bailee discharged their liability satisfactorily through relevant case laws. The Himalayan clause was brought up by the judge, however, the same would be dealt with by the second speaker from the claimants' side.

9:20: The Paramount clause existing in the agreement compels the respondents to abide by the provisions of the Hague Rules as well. The judge cinches on the fact that Brazil isn't party to the Hague Rules. The Counsel responds that the same would be dealt with later on.

9:23: The judges catch onto a weak point in the speakers' arguments by asking, "We don't arrive so simply at the same conclusion as you do. Just because the parties have agreed to abide by English Common law, can it be said that the parties have agreed to be bound by the Hague Rules since the same isn't clear in either Bill of Lading?" The Speaker requests to address the same in the latter part of their submissions.

9:27: The second speaker from the claimants' side starts her arguments with a bright smile reflective of her confidence over the issues. Can she turn the round in her favour?

9:30: The Counsel explains the issue of non-delegable liability of Tawe over the carriage of the goods in a simple fashion to establish that Tawe's responsibility exists at each port. 9:31: The Counsel addresses the judges' previous question on the Himalaya clause. The provision in the Hague rules provides a strict liability on the respondents and the exemption in the agreement is overridden by the Himalaya Clause. The judge asks if any provision exists within the agreement that would help them undermine the exemption from liability clause. Counsel responds by saying that the agreement itself recognizes the paramount nature of the Hague Rules and thus the exemption wouldn't apply.

9:36: The Counsel emphasizes on the gross negligence of the respondents in their failure to provide a seaworthy vessel which imposes a higher liability on them and thus the damages are justified.

9:40: The judge asks if the freedom of contract of the parties isn't being violated by insisting on the application of the Hague Rules. The Counsel responds that this was intended all along by the parties to enforce the Hague Rules. However, the judge seems unsatisfied with the answer insisting that the exemption provided in the contractual clause is absolute and clear. Thus, the claimants have to further substantiate how the Hague Rules are paramount. She uses various case laws to justify their stance on the same which are apparently enough to satisfy the judges.

9:44: The judge emphasizes that since Brazil nor Columbia are parties to the Hague Rules, would they still be bound by the same by force of law? The Counsel clarifies that the Hague Rules are appended to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and are thus part of the English Common Law. Consequently, the parties would be bound by the Hague Rules due to the contract.

9:49: The Counsel ends the claimants' submissions on a positive note with their prayers.

9:51: The Counsel of the respondents' side starts by stating the complexities of the case in which the lex arbitri is Singapore, there hasn't been any agreement whether the parties chose to apply SCMA rules while making the contract. The judge cinches on the weak point in the speaker's arguments to ask since the SCMA is a unique method of arbitration. Isn't it self-explanatory that the SCMA rules would apply especially since the parties have submitted to SCMA arbitration?

9:56: The judges seem dissatisfied with the Counsel's response and the Counsel responds by using case laws to substantiate that the model law could still be applicable in case of a conflict. The judges insist that there exists no conflict since the arbitration clause itself is very clear that SCMA would apply. However, the speaker's responses to the same are not satisfactory.

10:02: And heat intensifies upon the Counsel! The line of questioning posed by the judges seems to have unnerved the speaker as they stutter through some of their submissions.

10:04: The Counsel gets back on track confidently with a compelling case law with similar circumstances to show that the Hague Rules can't apply on the parties where they themselves are not a party to the same nor does their contract clarify the same.

10:10: The Counsel emphasizes on the liability to maintain a seaworthy vessel on Tawe's part lies only till Columbia after which Cruz was responsible. Cruz wasn't a sub-bailee either as evidenced from facts. The judges visibly annoyed ask the counsel to quickly finish their submissions.

10:12: The second speaker from the respondents' side starts by expressing her hope that the dispute be solved quickly today. An eventuality most parties wish for on a Sunday morning!

10:14: The Counsel substantiates through a simple example that Cruz can't be made liable to Caspian since Cruz was never aware of Caspian's presence.

10:16: As clarified by the counsel, the liability imposed on Cruz is restricted to the contract between Cruz and Tawe. The judges seek some clarifications regarding the proposition. The speaker responds with extreme levels of calmness displayed.

10:19: The Speaker provides a novel argument that Cruz isn't a carrier as per the first Bill of Lading but merely a third party/ servant. The judges seem to be interested in this argument as they ask for some clarifications and even remark "Good, good" once the speaker is done.

10:24: The Counsel cinches on a weak spot in the claimants' arguments by emphasising that they cannot pick and choose the clauses they wish to abide by. In the present case the claimants do exactly that, forgetting that some of the relevant provisions of the Hague Rules stand deleted.

10:29: The Counsel convincingly presents the quantification of damages and how the claimants have excessively quantified the same. She confidently concludes her submissions with the judges seemingly satisfied.

10:32: The claimants take the floor to deliver their rebuttals. They systematically dismantle the cases presented by the respondents in their first issue.

10:34: The claimants conclude their rebuttals by providing sufficient response to the respondents' arguments. The judge asks, "What is your response to their argument that due to privity of contract, Cruz wouldn't be held liable by the claimants." The speaker and the judge engage in an argumentative conversation. However, the judge seems to be satisfied for the moment.

10:40: The respondents engage in counterfactuals to deconstruct the claimants' case systematically.

10:44: The judge asks the speaker about the necessity of a paramount clause since the same has been removed from the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act,1971. The judges are satisfied with the speakers' response and the rounds conclude. The two teams who were extremely thorough and clearly had a lot of knowledge of the law. The rest is upto the judges' wisdom. Let us see who makes it to the Finals and goes for glory!


Semi-Final 2

A - Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar (Team Code: 906)

R - ILS Law College, Pune (Team Code: 909)


11:58: Exhilarated and excited, we begin the second semi-final round on an optimistic note! May the best team win.

11:59: Slow and poised, the first counsel for the claimant begins making her submissions. The enthusiasm to win is clearly visible on her face. The entire courtroom listens in awe as she concisely makes her submissions.

12:01: The counsel sprouts strong arguments on the facts. However, she is thrown off guard when asked to provide for a precedent on the submissions that she is making. Apologetically, she states that there is none. The judges do not look impressed. Are the claimants off to a bad start already?

12:03: Not letting the minor setback affect her, the Counsel proceeds with her arguments. She is interrupted again - Mr. Srikanth wants to know about the legal intricacies surrounding the case in the context of the SCMA rules. The counsel is visibly perplexed now. Her calm demeanour is long gone and she's struggling to gather her thoughts to come up with a satisfactory answer. It's only been 5 minutes but the counsel has been challenged twice already in this short time frame.

12:08: The Counsel continues with her submissions, invigorated to put all the blame on the respondents and win the rounds.

12:09: The judges listen attentively. There has been not much more grilling and the Counsel is able to proceed smoothly. She establishes how the clause incorporating the Hague rules has an overriding effect over the other clauses in the contract. The respondents listen with rapt attention, trying to come up with counters that will establish their dominance.

12:13: Another question! But looks like this question is going to be a cakewalk for the Counsel. Given that she is extremely well-versed with the facts of the case, as is evident from her submissions, she confidently provides a satisfactory answer. The judges look happy with her response and allow her to continue.

12:15: The judges enquire about the Bills of Lading and the contracting state. The counsel begins explaining, however, the judges need more clarifications. The respondent is frantically writing down answers in the chatbox and the counsel is listening intently, trying to recall anything that will help solve Mr. Bijish's queries.

12:17: Uh-oh! There's an abrupt halt because one of the judges is having a hard time with network issues. The Counsel uses this time to read whatever materials that she has at her disposal to help her submissions. Her eyes move from one side of her laptop screen to another, trying to check if she has missed out on anything relevant argument.

12:20: The rounds have resumed. "With respect to the applicable jurisdiction, which SCMA rules apply? 2015 or 2022?" asks Mr. Avinav. The counsel answers that the 2022 rules are applicable from January and then proceeds further.

12:22: The first counsel steps down, and now the onus to prove that the claimants are the legally stronger side is on the second speaker. The second speaker now starts their submissions.

12:23: The second speaker looks very well prepared! This is evident from the plethora of authorities and cases that he is citing. We have to admit that his arguments are extremely precise and convincing and his demeanour is graceful and calm.

12:24: The speaker has been lucky so far and has managed to go on with his arguments without inviting any questions from the judges. However, just when he thought that his first submission is over, the grilling begins!

12:29: Seems like the grilling has begun to take a toll on the speaker. Faltering his way through his answer, he murmurs something in the hopes that the judges will let him continue with his submissions after this. However, this does not seem to be the case.

12:32: "On what basis are you claiming USD 600,000?" The speaker's face drops. However, he does some quick thinking on his feet and fathoms a satisfactory answer.

12:35: "On what basis do you say that the vessel is unseaworthy?" The Counsel simply states that it has been provided in the facts. The judges do not seem satisfied - "What is the basis of your claims, apart from the facts?", they ask. The counsel is taken aback by this. The words that came just flowing out of mouth minutes ago seem to be coming out after 2 minute intervals.

12:37: Perplexed and flummoxed, the counsel is having a hard time deciding who is the second defendant in the case. A moment of silence, some scrolling through what we can assume to be the memorial or the case record, and some fervent typing by the researcher in the chatbox - ah! we have our answer. The judges look satisfied. Better a late answer than no answer, we guess?

12:42: He's done! The counsel sighs with relief - no more questions, no more grilling, no more rapid heartbeats and definitely no more stress of whether or not the judges will be satisfied with his answer. Knowing that the fate of his team does not rest on him anymore, he steps down.

12:45: The first counsel from the respondents' side begins with pleading the judges to excuse her in case she faces any network issues. The judges are extremely accommodative about it.

12:51: A question! The Counsel attempts to swiftly evade it by stating that she will address it later during her submissions. The judges are dissatisfied. Luckily, the researcher comes to her aid and copies and pastes what seems to be a couple of thousand words in the chatbox. The counsel then reads it out!

12:54: The questions keep coming in. The Counsel remains unfettered about these questions and smoothly manages to answer them.

12:58: A round of constant grilling and the counsel seems to be providing satisfactory answers. But her nervousness is starting to creep in, inferring from her expressions.

13:00: The counsel steps down. She is happy and yields the floor to her second Counsel.

13:01: After what seems to be like an extremely amazing round, the second speaker begins with her submissions. Can she live up to how amazing her co-counsel was? Let's wait and find out.

13:02: A bunch of tricky questions and the counsel has begun shivering. A lot of 'errr's and 'ummm's and our judges are not happy. Can you blame them really?

13:06: The speaker looks dejected. Her team is frowning - this isn't the situation they were hoping for. The speaker is interrupted again. Mr. Bijish wants to know if the liability for carrying the goods is up to Chennai or Columbia. The counsel answers. It is wrong - at least the judge seems to think so. He smiles and there is a follow-up question.

13:10: The counsel seems to have sensed that her answer isn't the one that the judges were looking for. She tries answering again, this time with different legal reasoning.

13:11: We thought we had seen it all but now it seems like the counsel is reading out even answers to the questions that judges are asking from the material that she has prepared previously. The monotony in her voice also does not seem to help.

13:12: The claimants are scribbling away in their notebooks. They are not going to let the respondents win without giving them a hard time!

13:13: How can someone stammer and seem unsure of answers that she is reading from previously prepared materials, we fail to understand! The judges also look unimpressed by her. Looks like she has to step up her game or the respondents can say goodbye to the trophy.

13:18: If only telling "Right Mr. Arbitrator" got you the trophy! The counsel seems to have a lot of those, but no satisfactory answers in response to Mr. Bijish's questions.

13:22: The rounds are over and here come the rebuttals! Hopefully, the claimants will be able to break the monotony and liven things up in the courtroom.

13:23: Just like her submissions, her rebuttals are slow and poised. She makes extremely convincing points. However, the judges seem determined to grill her even during her rebuttals. The Counsel however knows exactly what to say! With every passing minute, she proceeds to systematically decimate the credibility of the respondent's submissions.

13:26: The counsel seeks a 30-seconds extension for her rebuttals. It is graciously granted.

13:27: The sur-rebuttals have begun! The counsel counters the claimant's points. Clearly, she's doing a good judge at it. Her teammates nod in unison.

13:31: The judges now deliberate on which side was better and whose arguments were more convincing.

13:35: And we conclude the semi-finals now as the judges proceed to give feedback to the participants. This feedback can prove to be extremely pivotal as one of these teams is going to compete for the trophy that everyone wants. We cannot wait for the final round to get started and we will make it a point to give you updates on our live blogs operating here! Stay tuned and keep yourself updated with activities going on at and live blog! Looking forward to bring you updates for one last time in the finals!


DAY 4 | 27TH MARCH 2022




A - The School of Excellence in Law, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University (Team Code: 926)

R - Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar (Team Code: 906)



16:50: The moment is finally here, the moment we have all been waiting for. Welcome to the finals of the 9th NLUO Bose & Mitra & Co. International Maritime Arbitration Moot. In a few hours' time, we will get to know who goes home with the trophy. This is the stage they all wanted to argue at, in the finals and before the very best of judges. The judges are here, the participants are here. If you wish to watch this round from the luxury of your home, you can see it through the live stream link given above

16:56: To familiarise everyone with the judges, today in the panel we have Mr. Amitava Majumdar who is the Managing Partner of Bose & Mitra & Co., Prof. Simon Baughen (Professor, IISTL, Swansea University), Prof. Andrew Tettenborn (Chair in Law, LLM Shipping and Trade IISTL, Swansea University, Mr. Ian Teo (Managing Director, Helmsman LLC, Singapore). We will shortly begin with the submissions of the finalists before this esteemed panel.

17:05: The first Counsel from the applicant side has started off the round meticulously walking the judges through the facts of the case requesting them to refer to the memorial for their convenience.

17:08: The first issue is being presented with sufficient conviction where the Speaker is advocating the application of SCMA Rules along with the English law. She is now elaborating on the SCMA Rules and requesting the appointment of three arbitrators in this particular case.

17:11: All the arbitrators of the panel look quite interested and invested in the argument of the Counsel but none of them have interrupted the Counsel yet to pose their questions. Section 15(a)(5) is being quoted verbatim by the Counsel who attempts to present a strong case in the favour of the applicants.

17:14: The Counsel is repeatedly seen arguing in favour of the appointment of three arbitrators. The Counsel politely asks the panel if they have any doubt in the first issue explained.

17:17: Mr. Andrew comments that "The SCMA Rules look more like Cinderella, all dressed up and nowhere to go." The Counsel has however been successful in explaining the applicability of SCMA rules instead of the IAA here. The arbitrators thus allow the Counsel to proceed with the next set of arguments of her second issue.

17:18: As the Counsel now advocates for the applicability of Hague Rules 1924 giving its clause paramount effect, Mr. Andrew questions her on the applicability of the English Sea Act. Mr. Simon has a similar follow-up question on the force of law of the Hague Rules. The Counsel has put up a brave face and has attempted to appease the arbitrators with a case law but Mr. Simon doesn't look content with the answer furnished.

17:22: The Counsel has however assured that the questions posed at her would be cleared in the second limb of her argument. "Was this a deck cargo or an under-deck cargo?", asked Mr. Amitav. The Counsel replied that the fact sheet was not transparent on the position of the cargo and has requested to proceed with her other arguments.

17:25: Owing to the myriad of questions posed to the Counsel, she has almost run out of time and has pleaded for an extension so that she can comfortably present her submissions.

17:27: Mr. Andrew has politely pointed out to the Counsel that her time is on the verge of geting over. He says, "Though we are indulging you, our indulgence cannot be unlimited." The Counsel is fighting tooth and nail to wrap up her arguments but she has been stopped for more clarification on the ratio of a particular judgement she cited. The Counsel pleads for an extension of 30 more seconds to complete her submissions. "Off you go", said Mr. Simon and the Counsel has been allowed to finish up the presentation of her submissions.

17:31: The second Counsel from the claimants' side has taken the floor now and is confidently and efficiently presenting the remaining issues. She lays out the very pertinent concept of "No Fault Liability" where the defendants are liable even when they have no fault but she points out that the defendants here despite admitting fault is claiming no liability.

17:34: The Counsel was elaborating on the term "seaworthy vessel" when she is stopped by Mr. Andrew who said that she need not convince the arbitrators on the condition of the vessel as that is well within the knowledge of the arbitrators.

17:36: The Counsel is citing a part of an article authored by Mr. Andrew himself. She is soon interrupted by Mr. Simon who wants to know the concept upon which the Counsel intends to place reliance. The Counsel answers that the claimants intend to place reliance on both "duty of care of the defendants" as well as "the negligence under tort law".

17:40: The Counsel is referring to a pertinent case law in the memorial and is simultaneously elaborating on the precedent for the convenience of the arbitrators. "Is it the page that looks like a flowchart?", asked Mr. Andrew cheerfully while going through the Compendium, The Counsel however directs him to the correct page.

17:44: The Counsel has now moved on to the set of arguments on liability on the part of defendants. "What do you think was the intention of the parties while incorporating clause 3 in the agreement?" The Counsel is steadily and confidently batting for the claimants' side citing Hague Rules and is seen emphasizing on the fact that the contract is being read in toto.

17:53: The mic has been passed on to the Respondents' side who look equally confident and fierce with their set of arguments. The first counsel is calmly arguing in favour of the application of IAA and is negating the existence of any other seat of arbitration except Singapore.

17:56: Mr. Ian questions the Counsel on the mandatory nature of section 9 of the IAA and has difficulty comprehending the mandatory nature of the same. The Counsel replies that they intend to go into the construction of the provision and interpret the intention of the drafters. Saying this, the Counsel has attempted to explain the mandatory nature of section 9.

18:00: "Why do you think the Singaporean legislature has made it so difficult to appoint more than one arbitrator and has left the number so ambiguous and open-ended?", asked Mr. Andrew. Mr. Amitava has followed up on the question of Mr. Andrew asking, "Why can the number of arbitrators not be three under SCMA rules if the number has not been determined by the parties?" The Counsel has pointed out the default clause in section 9 and is seen elaborating on the inconsistency between Clause 8.2 and clause 9 of IAA.

18:05: The Counsel is pleading to the arbitrators and vehemently arguing on the over-riding effect of IAA over SCMA Rules. Subsequently, the Counsel submits that the Hague Rules would have no force of law at all in this particular matter.

18:07: "The Hague Visby Rules has not been asserted by the claimant so there is no dispute on this condition", pointed out Mr. Simon and Mr. Ian. The Counsel has thus moved on to the next limb of her argument.

18:10: The Counsel has thus moved on to explaining the contractual liability of incorporating the Hague Rules through a very pertinent case law. The Counsel is additionally citing authorities authored by Mr. Simon, the arbitrator himself. This has been quite an interesting round where most of the articles cited have been authored by the honorable arbitrators themselves.

18:14: The second Counsel from the respondents' side has been handed over the baton who is trying his best to match the energy and confidence of his co-counsel. Outlining his arguments, the Counsel has started off by explaining clause 7 of the case study. Additionally, he is seen referring to the Odysses Bill of Lading.

18:18: Mr. Andrew stops the second Counsel and asks him "Wouldn't the term 'ship' here mean any ship carrying goods between Santos and Chennai?" The Counsel has been able to explain the term with accuracy emphasizing on the intention of the parties.

18:22: The Counsel is now referring to Article 15 of the Odysses Bill of Lading alongwith a case law as mentioned in the memorial. He is emphasising on the intention of the parties where the bailors and sub-contractors intended not to be exposed to liability and would therefore fall under exemption.

18:25: Article 3 Clause 8 of the first Bill of Lading comprising of the Himalayan clause seems to be a tricky part as Mr. Simon has been firing quite a few questions on it and despite the Counsel's attempt to answer his questions, he does not look much convinced.

18:27: Nonetheless, the Counsel has been allowed to proceed to the next limb of his argument. He is seen mooting over the quantum of damages claimed by the other side. "Which limitation provisions are you relying on?" asked Mr. Simon, The Counsel replied that he was relying on the Fidalgo Bill of Lading.

18:31: This fascinating round is slowly closing down and reaching its end with the Counsel from the respondents' side presenting the prayers. The round has reached the most intriguing peak with the rebuttal and sur-rebuttal rounds in progress.

18:34: With the start of the rebuttal rounds, the claimants' side has started off with explaining the Saba case which was much debated upon during the entire arbitration proceedings. The claimants' side has finally concluded the rebuttal rounds with a claim of $600000 from the respondents' side.

18:38: The respondents' side has been given the floor to sur-rebuttal rounds and the Counsel has clarified that they did not intend to push on the Saba case to build on their matter. As the sur-rebuttal rounds gain pace, Mr. Andrew points out that the argument made by the Counsel is more general and not very specific. With that, the Counsel of the Respondent stands down and the final round of IMAM ends on a very satisfactory note.

18:42: The judges have been sent to their respective room for deliberation and the participants are patiently waiting for the result. The feedback session is about to start. The final rounds were indeed a treat for anybody who was fortunate enough to witness it. We hope to organise an even grander IMAM competition in the year ahead.


The 9th National Law University Bose & Mitra & Co. International Maritime Arbitration Moot Court Competition 2022 has successfully come to an end. We saw enthusiastic arguments from 27 teams to make these Virtual Oral Rounds so interesting and engaging. The rounds were organized from 24th to 27th March 2022 and we have to commend the energetic display and the perseverance of the participations who were integral to make this moot a huge success. The Organizing Team of the IMAM 2022 was impeccable in its approach and we are very thankful for their efforts. We express our gratitude to the judges who took time out of their busy schedules and contributed to the quality of this moot court competition.

As it was exemplified in the finals which were concluded just now, we saw some thrilling rounds throughout the moot court competition in which there were some fantastic arguments were put forth. The judges' interjections and questions must have helped the students to understand where their arguments were lacking and what improvements they can make in order to reach the next level of their personal growth.

This event could not have been possible without the constant support of our partners namely: our Academic Partners, The Institute of International Shipping and Trade Law, Swansea University; our Global Partners Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration; our Knowledge Partner Informa Law; our Resource Partner The Asian Institute of Alternative Dispute Resolution. Furthermore, we wish to thank the administration of National Law University Odisha led by the Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Ved Kumari and the Registrar, Prof. Yogesh Pratap Singh. The support of the Faculty Advisors Ms. Eluckiaa and Ms. Nikita also played a crucial part in the success of this event. We 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. Last but not the least, the live blogger's team was instrumental in the updates posted on the IMAM official website and SCC Online, the team consisted of the following members: Vishesh Minocha, Devansh Sehgal, Sagun Modi, Pratikshya Mohanty, Taniya Ghangas, Ananya Sharma, Chitrangda Saini, Anjalika Sarkar, Ananya Gudihal, Tamanna Das Patnaik, Karshana Aggarwal, Rohini Roy. On this note, we sign off on behalf of the Moot Society, National Law University Odisha

bottom of page