LIVE Blog, Day-1,| 10th NLUO – Bose & Mitra & Co. International Maritime Arbitration Moot 2023

The National Law University Odisha is pleased to welcome you to the live blogging of the Oral Rounds of 10th Bose & Mitra & Co. International Maritime Arbitration Moot (IMAM) 2023. This event is organized in collaboration with Bose & Mitra & Co. as Title Sponsors of the Moot, International Institute of Shipping and Trade Law, Swansea University as Strategic Partner; Asian Institute of Alternative Dispute Resolution as Resource Partner, Lloyd’s List Intelligence as Knowledge Partner and SCC Online-EBC as Media Partner.

Bose & Mitra & Co. is one of the oldest and largest steadfast law firms in the field of Maritime Law in India, with a client base worldwide. They have been ranked as a band 1 law firm by Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners in the field of shipping. Recently, they received an award for excellence in “Maritime Jurisprudence” from the Indian Corporate Counsel Association.

Institute of International Shipping and Trade Law (IISTL), Swansea University, dedicates specialist research and professional training centre within Swansea University’s School of Law. IISTL has gained a worldwide reputation for its contribution to research, policymaking, professional training and teaching in various areas of maritime law.

Informa Law (www.informa.com), via its online platform www.i-law.com delivers expert case reporting, commentary, and analysis across eight specialist areas of commercial practice. Informa’s industry expertise means it does not just provide the information: its analysis tells what it means for you, your clients, and your business. And connected content and powerful search functionality, give the broad perspective you need when conducting legal research.

Asian Institute of Alternative Dispute Resolution (AIADR) is the first not-for-profit member-based Asian Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) forum. AIADR is endorsed by the Asian African Legal Consultative Organisation (AALCO) and was launched in April 2018 by His Excellency Prof. Dr. Kennedy Gastorn, the then Secretary-General of AALCO. AIADR is currently helmed by its president, Datuk Prof. Sundra Rajoo and is headquartered in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, with over 800 members and 40 jurisdictions.

The case study of this edition of IMAM has been drafted by Prof. Andrew Tettenborn, Chair in Law, LLM Shipping & Trade; Prof. Simon Baughen, Professor (Maritime Law), LLM Shipping & Trade; & Prof. Dr. George Leloudas, Professor, LLM Shipping & Trade; at IISTL, Swansea University, The United Kingdom.

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 3 days.

For keeping tabs on regular updates regarding IMAM, we encourage you to follow us on our Social Media Handles Instagram and LinkedIn for more regular insights. We wish the participating teams the very best of luck! May the odds be ever in your favor! For all the latest updates on the 10th NLUO Bose & Mitra Co. International Maritime Arbitration Moot, 2023 follow us on the SCC Online Blog:

DAY 1 | 24TH MARCH 2023

PRELIMINARY ROUNDS

SESSION 1

COURTROOM-1: Dreadnought vs Valentina

12:15 PM- It's a sunny day in Cuttack. The Judges have entered the courtroom and are interacting with the volunteers.

12:18 PM- They have now seated themselves and are going through the documents. They can’t wait for the session to start!

12:27 PM- The wait is finally over as the participants arrive in the courtroom. Both the teams are slowly taking their places.

12:33 PM- The round has finally begun. The first counsel from the claimants has started with the statement of facts. He then moves on to the issues at hand.

12:41 PM- The Bench is slowly coming into its element now and is dropping numerous questions on the speaker. The speaker is a little flustered with their sudden intervention so early in the game but he carries on. The Judges have asked him to proceed to the next issue. This court is moving fast!

12:46 PM- The CRM team signals with a placard that the time is running out. The Speaker must manage time wisely in order to finish his arguments in time. The Judges are questioning the nitty-gritties of the matter at hand and look half-convinced with the justification given by the first counsel.

12:51 PM- The speaker looks in a fix as a judge puts up a trick question. He proceeds to answer it but stops in between for a water break. There are infinite questions in the Bench’s bag as the speaker battles through them to utilize the remaining minutes well.

12:54 PM- The Judges stop the speaker after he refers to an old judgment. They look for it in the memo and ask the speaker to continue. The Bench is listening attentively as the speaker cites cases to support his argument.

12:56 PM- The Bench signals the second counsel to take the platform and present his arguments for the remaining issues at hand. The second counsel begins.

1:01 PM- The Judges are quick to correct the speaker as he presents a twisted explanation of a procedure. The respondents are gearing up for their turn and discussing amongst themselves. Time’s up! The second counsel requests for an extension. He is granted one.

1:04 PM- Time’s up again! But the second counsel is allowed to complete his arguments. The time management of the claimants is not looking very good right now. The Judges have many queries which are now being put up in front of the second counsel.

1:09 PM- The grilling continues. The respondents are listening intently and are noting down points for future reference.

1:13 PM- The first counsel of the respondents takes her place and the judges signal her to proceed. She begins confidently and proceeds directly to the issues at hand. The Judges listen intently.

1:18 PM- The Bench again starts in full swing and poses different questions in front of Speaker 1 of the respondents. She listens to them carefully and starts answering them. The judges counter-question. The exchange continues.

1:22 PM- Series of disagreements between the Judges and the Speaker 1 follow. While the judges look for more clarity in the justification, the first counsel strives hard to satisfy them.

1:26 PM- Oops! Another contradiction within the arguments of the first counsel caught by the bench. The first counsel looks weary with the continuous interrogation but carries on.

1:28 PM- Time’s up! The first counsel looks for an extension and the bench allows. The judges look unconvinced with the reasoning given by Speaker one for the third issue and direct her to certain provisions. She gives a reference to the memo and slowly makes way for the second counsel.

1:30 PM- The second counsel for the respondents starts with a bold voice and fills the courtroom with energy. She proceeds with her arguments. The Judge nods twice and presents her with a question. She answers it well.

1:35 PM- Speaker 2 of the respondents continues confidently, but is stopped as the judges inquire about a specific paragraph in a memo. The judges smile as the second counsel gives a vivid description of the clause in question including aspects like font and colour.

1:43 PM- With just a minute left, the judges direct the second counsel to proceed to the fifth issue. The judges while listening to the reasoning ask for a specific clause. Time’s running up! It's high time for the respondents to gear up.

1:50 PM- The judges do not look happy with the answer given by speaker 2 and explain the reasoning gap in the arguments. The voice of the second counsel lowers down as the courtroom becomes colder. She requests to proceed with the prayer but is politely denied.

1:51 PM- REBUTTAL TIME! The judges instruct the teams to stick to their time limits in the upcoming sessions. The claimants start strong and the respondents, even though dazed, listen carefully. The judges lean forward to listen better.

1:54 PM- The claimants make amends by finishing their rebuttal in due time. The respondents bring in the sur-rebuttals.

1:57 PM- The respondents also finish their sur-rebuttals in the given time period. The oral rounds have been concluded. The bench addresses both the teams and applauds them for their performance. They are then asked to leave as the judges start an internal discussion and note down their scores.

COURTROOM-2: Eastland vs Holland

12:15 PM- Good Afternoon and welcome to the Preliminary Rounds of The 10th Bose & Mitra & Co. International Maritime Arbitration Moot (IMAM) 2023. The judges are comfortably seated and conversing among themselves as we wait for the participants to take their places.

12:25 PM- The atmosphere of the courtroom is quite jovial as the judges go through the bench memorial awaiting the arrival of the participants.

12:27 PM- The participants have arrived in the courtroom and are slowly taking their places. The room is suddenly charged with anticipation.

12:30 PM- Hurried and last moment discussions are taking place among the teams as both teams await the final nod from the judges to begin.

12:34 PM- The Claimants submit their compendium to the bench and we are a go! Speaker 1 has taken their position

12:35 PM- Speaker 1 is explaining the facts and their structure of the arguments. They seem well versed with the facts. This seems to be appreciated by the Bench.

12:36 PM- Two minutes in and the questions have started. Speaker 1 seemed taken aback but seems to have answered satisfactorily.

12:40 PM- Speaker 1 has asked for permission for time to answer a volley of questions that they have just been subjected to.

12:43 PM- Speaker 1 is in the middle of answering questions to an issue which the bench seems quite critical of. The “1 minute” left placard goes up. But extra time has not been asked for.

12:45 PM- From a prompt from the Of-Counsel, Speaker 1 asks for extra time but the same is denied. Speed of Speaker 1 has increased palpably.

12:48 PM- Due to shortage of time, the bench has picked up what they feel is the most critical issue and is asking questions on that. They seem to be trying to get an understanding whether the Speaker has clarity in the basics of their claim.

12:51 PM- Speaker 2 is speaking much slower than their predecessor. The bench is finding it easier to understand the arguments presented and is not asking many questions.

12:53 PM- The flow of arguments of Speaker 2 is much more structured with proper enunciation and pauses. But alas- the first question has been asked! Will they be able to answer with the same composure and persuasiveness?

12: 55 PM- Speaker 2 answers confidently but the bench does not seem too satisfied. However, permission is given to proceed. Speaker 2 continues with their arguments in the same engaging momentum.

12:58 PM- The Respondent team is quietly taking notes for their own arguments. Will they use the opposing points from the bench in their arguments? Only time will tell.

1:00 PM- Speaker 2 is done with their submissions with sufficient time in hand. All eyes on the Respondents while they take their place and start their arguments.

1:02 PM- Speaker 1 of the Respondents starts with quite an energetic gusto. The bench is startled but pleased at the same time.

1:03 PM- The bench asks the Respondents to come to the crux of their submissions and Speaker 1 starts with their second argument.

1:08 PM- Speaker 1 seems to be losing the attention of the bench. The bench seems to have lost clarity on which issue the speaker is submitting on.

1:10 PM- Speaker 1 seems to be losing confidence due to the barrage of questions that they are being subjected to. But they will not be going down without a fight. They are trying to satisfy the bench in all ways possible.

1:12 PM- The bench is deliberating among themselves on whether they have been satisfied with the submissions of Speaker 1 or not. Finally, they have given permission to Speaker 2 to come forward.

1:15 PM- Speaker 2 is continuing with the same pace as their predecessor. But the bench does not seem satisfied with the submissions and is asking questions to get clarity.

1:23 PM- Is the Respondent side contradicting themselves? That is what the bench thinks. Will the Respondents be able to maneuver themselves out of this?

1:24 PM- “2 MINUTES LEFT”- Speaker 2 has been given permission to proceed due to paucity of time.

1:26 PM- “TIME’S UP”. Speaker 2 asks for 5 extra minutes but the bench is keen on summaries instead of full submissions. Does Speaker 2 have the skill to present their arguments in such a short time?

1:28 PM- “TIME’S UP”- the bench allows for one last argument in brief. The speed of Speaker 2 has increased substantially and the bench’s attention is focused. They might pull this off!

1:30 PM- The bench asks a question that the Speaker 2 cannot answer. The bench seems adamant on getting an answer so permission is given for the Of-counsel to research on the same.

1:34 PM- Arguments are over! Speaker 2 of the Claimants comes forward for the rebuttals with confidence and points out the fallacies of the arguments of the Respondents. Tension in the room is at its peak.

1:35 PM- The rebuttal is filled with pointed attacks and the Respondents seems to be taken aback. It's now their turn to pull out the guns.

1:36 PM- The Respondents have not backed down. They emphasise their points based on the case study in the sur-rebuttals.

COURTROOM-3: Bounty vs Skate

Prelim round - 1 stands postponed to Day - 3.

COURTROOM-4: Hunley vs Argonaut

12:14 PM- The Judges have seated themselves comfortably. The general tone of the conversations seem to be light and engaging. A good start to the competition’s 1st day.

12:28 PM- The teams have entered the room. There is a slight nervousness coupled with a positive attitude. Spectators have taken their seats to witness the well prepared arguments of the parties. The Court Room Managers have taken all the necessary information.

12:35 PM- The Claimant side’s Speaker 1 has started with a warm introduction. Slight temperature adjustments have been requested by the Judges. The Speaker proceeds with the structure of their arguments and is engaging well with the bench.

12:36 PM- Claimant has begun with their first submission. The judges seem to be cordial so far. The Claimant side’s speaker 1 is complimenting their arguments with expressive hand movements.

12:37 PM- And there comes the first clarification from the Judge. Oh! Another one follows merely a few seconds later. This one seems to be a challenging one.

12:38 PM- The Claimant side’s Speaker 1 has briefly shifted the burden of the answer to their co-counsel. Another question by the judges, the Claimant Speaker 1 has answered this question and backed it with a case law.

12:44 PM- Time stamp for 5 minutes left on the clock has been signalled by the Courtroom Manager. The Speaker seems to have taken note of the same. There is some visible tension however, they remain composed. The submissions go on.

12:45 PM- The Judge asks pertinent questions based on practicalities of a submission and the co-judges nod in favor of the question. Claimant side’s Speaker 1 has tackled this.

12:48 PM- TIME’S UP! The speaker has humbly requested for a 2 minute extension and this has been granted.

12:50 PM- TIME’S UP! The Speaker has rested their submissions. The Judges have also rested their questioning for Speaker 1.

12:51 PM- Speaker 2 from the Claimant’s side has taken the podium. Speaker 2 is a calmer speaker as opposed to their co-counsel.

12:57 PM- With 10 minutes left on the clock, the questioning has begun in relation to the assignment of liability. Speaker 2 has given what they think to be the right answer, the Judges have given the green light to proceed.

1:00 PM- The Respondents seem to be taking note of the general tenor of the judges. The judge seems to place the submissions of the Speaker in a succinct and clarificatory manner.

1:08 PM- Speaker 1 from the Claimant’s side has made a few attempts to prompt their co-counsel with some relevant information to tackle the heat of the judges’ questions. The Judges note the same and immediately request to stop prompting.

1:09 PM- TIME’S UP! Speaker 2 is now summarizing their arguments. Seems to be the end of a heated questioning for the Claimants.

1:10 PM- Respondent Speaker 1 has taken the stage and begins with their Statement of Jurisdiction. Oh! The judges seem to be in a questioning mood, the first question rolls in within the Speaker’s first statement!

1:13 PM- The Respondent begins their submissions with regards to the number of arbitrators to be appointed as per the respective laws. There comes a question from the Judge! The Respondent seems to have been slightly shaken because of the constant questioning but they remain confident in their responses, ending it with a poised smile.

1:22 PM- The Judge questions the weight of the Respondent‘s argument and the Counsel smartly answers this using a case law. Ah good try indeed but the Judges question the facts of the cited case on procedural aspects.

1:25 PM- TIME’S UP. With a 2 minute extension granted for the purposes of summarization, the Counsel for respondents continues to make submissions. There is a slight stammer in their voice, a challenging round indeed.

1:26 PM- Respondent Side Speaker 2 has taken the podium. The second speaker is a calm and composed speaker. The judge asks a question and the Speaker, confident in their knowledge, answers swiftly.

1:31 PM- The judge asks for a more recent case law to substantiate the Counsel’s argument as opposed to the old case that the Counsel has cited. The Respondent Side’s speaker 2 answers in the negative.

1:35 PM- A very challenging question is posed by the Judge on the grounds of the Respondent Side’s speaker 2. There is visible tension in the Speaker as they take a few seconds to reply.

1:38 PM- The judges point to the Speaker to take note of the time stamp. An extension is requested. 1 minute left on the clock.

1:42 PM- The Respondent completes their submission with their humble prayer. The judges thank the speaker with a smile. This draws close to the submissions on both sides.

1:43 PM- REBUTTALS have begun. From the Claimant’s side, Speaker 2 has come to rebut the arguments of the Respondents. They defend their case using relevant case laws however, the speaker is very fast and flustered. The minute has ended.

1:45 PM- Speaker 2 from the Respondent’s side has come for rebuttals. The speaker has rebutted the case well and the judges seemed satisfied with the responses.

COURTROOM-5: Titanic vs Clermont

12:23 PM- The judges have arrived and are engaging in pleasant conversation among themselves and others present in the room. They have requested the participants to be sent it.

12:30 PM- The teams have entered the room and seem confident yet a little anxious as the anticipation of the next few hours lingers. We hope that the months of effort they put in will surely be fruitful.

12:37 PM- The first counsel has made his way to the dias and is setting the stage off in a confident manner. The judges are listening intently and have raised a question about the applicability of the Hague convention.

12:44 PM- The counsel so far is doing an excellent job in tackling the clarifications being sent his way. The Bench seems satisfied. Kudos to him and his preparation!

12:48 PM-The counsel has summarized his issues in a wonderful manner and has now passed the baton to his co counsel.

12:54 PM- The Bench is listening and is giving a lot of thought to all their questions. The counsels are putting just as much thought and knowledge to their responses. They really have given their all to this competition!

12:56 PM- Oh what do we see here? The Bench is requesting for more clarity and the counsel is remaining calm and trying his best to sail his team's ship through this turbulent sea!

1:00 PM- With five minutes remaining, the co counsel is summarizing his arguments and it can be said that their ship has moved past the high waves.

1:05 PM- The counsel from the respondent is equally as confident and is directing the Bench towards the moot proposition to substantiate his arguments.

1:11 PM- The Bench has asked the counsel what the judgements being cited by him have ruled and how they apply to the Bench. The counsel seems to be trying to satisfy them. His team looks at him in assurance.

1:16 PM-15 minutes left and the counsel requests for an extension of 2 minutes. The counsel seems to be summarising his arguments and talking in great detail about how the facts of the case play out in their favour.

1:20 PM- The co-counsel has now started presenting her arguments and is correlating her arguments to the facts of the proposition and is guiding the Bench with her.

1:32 PM- Here begin the rebuttals. “You would be given two sentences” The Bench makes the round even more interesting with this. The counsel plays along.

1:35 PM- The round has been concluded and the Bench is now scoring the participants after engaging in thoughtful discourse.

COURTROOM-6: Beagle vs Carpathia

12:10 PM- Warm Regards to everyone. With only a few minutes left before we start with the first preliminary rounds for the day, the judges look cheerful. Let us see if the participants can lead the session with the same mood, we surely do hope so!

12:14 PM- With the pleasantries out of the way, the judges seem to now have engaged themselves with the documents relevant for the upcoming rounds.

12:31 PM- Finally! Tensed faces but confident smiles, the claimants have walked in. As they wait to be seated the respondents join the session. Both the parties seem to have a wonderful composure.

12:34 PM- The counsel seeks permission to approach the bench! And here it begins.

12:37 PM- There seems to be some discussion between the judges and the counsel regarding missing page numbers in the submission, but the judges did not seem to focus much on the error.

12:42 PM- The counsel is done with her submissions, the judges have begun to now critically question various sections of the written submission. The judges seem to have some specific doubts in certain submissions for which the counsel is now giving her answers.

12:47 PM- The respondents seem relaxed and deeply engrossed in the submissions of the claimants. Now that the session has sufficient fluency, the counsel has picked up the speed of her submission and has actively maintained a polite and humble composure.

12:49 PM- The judges offer an extension to the counsel and ask a quick question, though it seems that the answer didn't quite catch the judges’ attention. We now have the next counsel at the podium and she has begun with her submissions. The judges seem to have engrossed themselves with the problem once again while also attentively listening to the ongoing submission, since they do not seem to be losing out on any opportunity to question the counsel.

12:56 PM- The judges seem to have caught some major confusion in the written submissions, in the furtherance of which they actively question the counsel. While the counsel appeared confused for a split second, she timely caught her composure and has been actively involved in a question-answer based discussion with the judges.

1:00 PM- Growing tired with the interrogation, the judges seem to have taken up a calmer composure where they seem to be actively listening to the submissions by the counsel, and simultaneously informing her of the core problem.

1:02 PM- The request for a short extension by the counsel has been approved after which she has been bombarded with more questions. The conversation has taken quite an engaging turn and the judges have returned to actively listening and have paused the questions for now.

1:06 PM- The claimants end their submissions on a warm and cheery note with a presentation of their final prayer, the judges seem very hard to read at this point.

1:08 PM- The respondents have begun with their submission after seeking requisite permissions from the judges. The speaker seems confident enough with his submissions and seems to have caught the attention of everyone in the room.

1:13 PM- The speaker seems to have a moment of stutter. Though he managed to regain his composure just as soon as he lost it. The judges, once again, are on an active questioning spree.

1:14 PM- The judges point to the fact that the respondents have been using the definitions provided according to their convenience, and skipping out on them when not per their use. The judges appear dissatisfied with the present submission but the speaker accepts his error, and the session proceeds!

1:20 PM- With the end of submission by the first counsel, the second counsel has drawn the attention of the judges with his warm and calm composure and the smooth presentation of his arguments. The counsel states a brief structure of how he shall be proceeding with his arguments throughout his submission.

1:26 PM- The counsel seems to be confused with his arguments, since the judges are having a hard time comprehending them. The counsel has been instructed to clarify on what his proper arguments are.

1:28 PM- The counsel proceeds with the second issue. The counsel seems quite adamant about his reasoning and is putting active effort in convincing the judges of his reasoning. The calm demeanour of the second counsel is appreciable since he has been persistently questioned by the judges throughout his submissions and yet, manages to find a prompt reply to every question.

1:34 PM- The counsel has begun with the summarisation of his issue points. He is now being questioned on certain citations presented in his submissions and the relevancy of the said citations. The speaker seems to have satisfied the judges since they ask him to proceed ahead with his argument summarisations.

1:36 PM- The respondents have ended their submission. The claimant counsel briefly joins us at the podium and points out a few couple disparities that they could find in the written submissions. The points made focus more over technical errors in the submission and less over any factual disparity.

1:41 PM- The first rounds of the day have come to an end! The teams have been instructed to leave the room, which they seem more than happy to comply with!

COURTROOM-7: Nautilus vs Lenin

12:07 PM- Welcome all to the first session of IMAM 2023. We are in Court Room 7. The judges have arrived and have started looking into the documents. The counsels are awaited!

12:14 PM- While the counsels are yet to join us, the judges are engaging in a cheerful conversation. This Bench sure looks excited for the upcoming rounds and is ready for some grilling!

12:24 PM- Here comes the teams. They seem to be a bit nervous, and are busy sorting their documents. Ladies and Gentlemen, get ready to witness some amazing deliberation in the next few hours. Looks like we are good to go!

12:30 PM- The counsel has started with great zeal, and mentioned their structure of arguments. The judges have seeked initial clarification on the structure of the ensuing arguments. So far, so good!

12:32 PM- With commencement of the arguments, the counsel has swiftly guided the judges to the pages of their memorial, and has started with his first issue.

12:35 PM- The counsel has asserted that the arbitration shall be conducted based on the LMAA Rules. He mentions “an ICC case”, to which the judge has promptly asked the name of the case. The counsel seems to have lost his track, and is fumbling. There, he finds it!

12:37 PM- “Is that the LMAA Rules you are reading from?” asks the judge. The counsel clarifies on the same.

12:39 PM- The judge points out and asks the counsel to state his reasoning behind the contention that the LMAA Rule would prevail over the English Arbitration Act. The judge doesn’t seem convinced with the answer and has posed a counter-question. He seems hard to convince!

12:41 PM- The counsel seeks permission to move to the second issue. However, the bench seems to have a few more clarifications on the first issue itself. The respondents seem to be listening attentively to the arguments of the claimants.

12:45 PM- Looking at the paucity of time, the judges have allowed the counsel to move to the subsequent issue. The counsel is continuously referring to his written documents and compendiums, the judges are following his lead.

12:51 PM- The judges have graciously allowed 30 more seconds to the counsel to wrap up his arguments.

12:52 PM- The second counsel has taken the mantle. She has informed the judges of her being unwell and that she may take breaks to sip water. Quite a humble request!

12:57 PM- Oh wait! “Do not read, you are reading too much on the references.” One of the judges seems to be disappointed at the continuous reading of the memorial by the counsel. Not a good sign!

12:58 PM- The Bench today is on a roll! They are posing very pin-pointed and sharp questions at the counsel. This seems to have made the counsel a bit edgy, leading to a lot of stumbling on her part.

1:03 PM- The judges are shooting queries left, right and centre. Quite a hot bench I would say. The respondents are seen chatting among themselves, a not-so-attentive approach!

1:05 PM- With just 1 Min left, the counsel still has a long way to go to fully satisfy the judges who are seeking more clarifications.

1:08 PM- The claimants have collectively stood up to present their prayer. The bumpy ride for the claimants comes to an end! It is now the turn of the respondents to put forth their contentions. Good luck to them!

1:10 PM- The counsel looks very confident and has started off with a great note. He has rapidly moved to his submissions for the case at hand.

1:13 PM- The judges have asked the counsel to establish the things that the claimants have failed to do. The counsel seems to have quick and clean answers to the questions of the bench.

1:21 PM- The counsel has begun with Issue 3 which pertains to the bill of lading being of bad tender. He moves to establish his reasoning as to why it is bad tender.

1:27 PM- TIMES UP, the courtroom manager has indicated! However, the claimant still continues without asking for an extension. The judges are paying full attention.

1:29 PM- A request for extension was denied, the counsel has now handed over the baton to his co-counsel.

1:33 PM- One of the judge started reading out the RETLA clause, and asks about the counsel’s stance on breach of duty on the part of the claimants.

1:36 PM- The judge sitting in the middle seems to have laid a trail of counter-questions for the counsel. Seems like the counsel is not able to give a proper answer to his questions. The atmosphere has turned a bit tense at the moment.

1:39 PM- The counsel stands firm on her ground and is trying her best to substantiate her position on the issue at hand. The counsel seems to be intimidated at the sizable questions being posed at her.

1:47 PM- The counsel for the claimants has started off her rebuttals by swiftly pointing out the lacunas in the respondent’s submissions. She has been stopped in the middle since her time’s up. It’s now the respondents turn to give a befitting reply to the contentions raised against them.

1:49 PM- The respondents have adopted a very calm and light tone while answering to the questions posed by their opponents, she seems to be exuding confidence while presenting her stance.

1:52 PM- With this, this intense battle of deliberations, and cross questioning has come to a conclusion.

COURTROOM-8: Fulton vs Lusitania

12:20 PM- Hello and Welcome to each and all. The participants walk in with troubled faces and confused looks. They are ready for round one of IMAM.

12:27 PM- The round is yet to start. However, the room is filled with a blend of different emotions. The participants are now seated ready to put their opponent’s skill to the test.

12:30 PM- The round has begun. The Claimant begins to put her case forward. She seems confident and well prepared. Their opponents glare at her waiting for the first slip-up.

12:46 PM- The bench is going through the relevant documents. They have agreed to extend the speaker’s time by two minutes.

12:54 PM- The second speaker faced a barrage of questions from the judges. The tedious questions have managed to faze her. She asked for a minute to collect her thoughts and now, she is back with her answers.

12:58 PM- The line of questioning has ended. The judges do not seem satisfied. When asked if the claimant could proceed to the second issue, the judges said, “Sure” with a simple nod.

1:00 PM- The speaker stops in between her submissions. She says that she sensed a concern and whether the judge wished to ask anything. The judges refuse and ask her to simply continue.

1:01 PM- The speaker seems to have succumbed to the pressure. She fumbles yet pulls herself back.

1:03 PM- The speaker rested her case. The Respondents have now taken the podium.

1:08 PM- The Speaker has made a minor mistake with respect to the definition of an important term. The judge rectifies the slight error and asks the speaker to proceed further.

1:13 PM- The judges ask three questions at once. The speaker seems lost. The judges seem annoyed. The Speaker has not satisfactorily answered the questions asked by them.

1:15 PM- Much to their misfortune, the judge remarks, “Counsel, we are going in circles. Please, just answer my question.” The Speaker fails to convince the judges with her answers.

1:20 PM-The second speaker takes the podium. She speaks confidently but will she be able to survive the line of questioning.

1:25 PM- The second speaker speaks dramatically and emphasises on multiple terms. However, the judges seem unfazed and unaffected.

1:30 PM- The speaker ended their submissions. The Claimants now punched upon the opportunity of rebutting. The Claimants choose to utilise their 48 seconds in order to dismantle the submissions made by their opponents.

1:33 PM- The judges were considerate and awarded a minute to the Claimants. The Claimants took the podium to point out an error in the case laws mentioned. The judges do not seem satisfied with the question asked.

1:36 PM- The rounds have come to an end. The participants vacate the hall with confused faces. The adrenaline rush has come to an end.

DAY 1 | 24TH MARCH 2023

PRELIMINARY ROUNDS - SESSION 1 CONCLUDES!

We have come to the end of an engaging first session. Stay tuned the SCC Online Blog for constant updates!

NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot(IMAM) (@NLUO_IMAM) March 24, 2023

DAY 1 | 24TH MARCH 2023

PRELIMINARY ROUNDS

SESSION 2

COURTROOM-1: Scharnhorst vs Eastland

3:10 PM- After a break, the judges are all ready to begin with Session 2! The teams have started arriving in the courtroom and are slowly taking their seats. The judges are waiting for them to settle down while engaging in a friendly banter with each other.

3:19 PM- The judges, with their chins resting on their clasping hands, listen to the arguments intently. The first counsel confidently proceeds with his arguments.

3:21 PM- The judges start dropping-in questions which are answered by the first counsel one-by-one. The judges continue with follow-up questions whilst discussing something amongst themselves.

3:23 PM- The rounds are getting interesting as the second issue at hand is taken up by Speaker 1 of the claimants. The judges are nodding from time to time to reflect their understanding of the arguments. Good going!

3:28 PM- The respondents can be seen noting points diligently from time to time. Looks like they are gearing up for their turn. The judges ask the first counsel to summarise his arguments. Only a few minutes are left as the second counsel replaces Speaker 1.

3:33 PM- The second counsel for the claimant now moves on to the next issue. The judges inquired about a particular matter for which Speaker 2 answered that the facts are silent on that matter. The judges directed the counsel to continue.

3:40 PM- “You can’t have it both ways, counsel”. Oops! There seems to be some disagreement between the judges and the second counsel as he tries to answer a question by one of the judges. But it is quickly resolved as speaker 2 continues with his arguments.

3:43 PM- AND, TIME’S UP! But the second counsel is granted an extension as the judges continue to listen to the argument with great interest. The speaker is then directed to end the arguments due to paucity of time.

3:46 PM- The first counsel of the respondents comes to the podium and greets the judges. Speaker 1 smartly indicates the time limit of arguments beforehand, reflecting the team’s efficient time management. He starts with the arguments issue-by issue, right away.

3:55 PM- One of the judges puts in a query which leaves the first counsel in a fix. They ponder upon it for sometime. The whole courtroom falls silent. The question is then answered and it is answered well. The judge gives a quick smile and asks the first counsel to carry on. Phew!

4:00 PM- The second counsel of the respondents now replaced the first counsel at the podium. The session continued with the third issue.

4:05 PM- The judges put forward a tricky question and the second counsel gets stuck on it. The judges address the dilemma of Speaker 2 after which the arguments are continued.

4:14 PM- In between the queries, the judges take a second to point out the fundamentals related to the issue at hand and then ask the second counsel to move to the final issue.

4:17 PM- The judges instruct both the teams to stick to the time limit before the starting of the rebuttals.

4:18 PM- Rebuttal time! The counsel for the claimants start the rebuttal in full swing and leave the other team awestruck as they frantically take pointers.

4:20 PM- Rebuttals are finished in due time. The sur-rebuttals begin with a good thrust. The claimants are absorbed in the arguments and listen attentively. The sur-rebuttals are also finished within the stipulated time period.

4:23 PM- “Good Job and Best of Luck!” And with these words, the bench bids adieu to both the teams before moving on to the marking of the rounds. The orals rounds for session 2 have been concluded successfully.

COURTROOM-2: Savannah v. Bounty

3:11 PM- The Claimants are off to a good start. With a commanding and clear voice, Speaker 1 is explaining the structure of their submissions.

3:12 PM- Speaker 1 has chosen to present facts through the timeline of events and the bench is appreciative of the same.

3:15 PM- The bench seems engrossed with the submissions of Speaker 1. Well done!

3:19 PM- Is Speaker 1 speaking too fast for the bench to get an opening to ask questions or are they just that good? 10 minutes in and no questions yet.

3: 21 PM- The first question comes in. A long winded answer to a crisp question on the Bill of Lading.

3:32 PM- Speaker 1 is not wavering in their argument nor is their confidence. Citing a case from their compendium, they are finally able to satisfy the bench.

3:36 PM- “5 MINUTES LEFT” and Speaker 1 starts on with their second issue. The time crunch can be felt from the palpable increase in the speed of the Speaker.

3:43 PM- Speaker 1 is being bombarded with questions and time is running out-TIME’S UP-Speaker 1 leaves with a tinge of frustration. Phew!

3:44 PM- Speaker 2 comes up and the questions have started already on the structuring of issues in the memorial. The bench asks the Speaker 2 whether they would be willing to reframe their issue.

3:48 PM- Speaker 2 seems to be at a loss. Silence ensues as they contemplate on whether they are willing to reframe.

3:49 PM- Speaker 2 finally concedes to the newly reframed issue and the arguments continue.

3:55 PM- The bench has pointed out that Speaker 2 gave a long answer to what could have been answered in a crisp manner. Oops!

4:00 PM- “TIME’S UP”- Speaker 2 is unable to satisfy the applicability of the arbitration rules but rushes to the Prayer with a request for extension.

4:02 PM- The floor is now open to the Respondents. Speaker 1 speaks with an assuring certainty as they explain their structure and have taken over the room.

4:10 PM- Speaker 1 is not giving a clear answer to a Yes/No question. The Bench points it out but asks the Speaker to proceed in the interest of time.

4:15 PM- The Bench states that if they are unwilling to accept the Respondent’s primary argument, what is the exceptional circumstance which separates the Respondents from the rest. Time is almost up and this is quite a loaded question.

4:18 PM- Speaker 1 takes a bold move and on their own attempts to answer the question from the bench their opposing side was unable to answer. The bench is smiling- they are pleased with the initiative and the answer!

4:23 PM- The bench is conversing among themselves- they seem to be concerned about the paucity of time. Speaker 1 asks for extension but the same is denied in the interest of letting Speaker 2 speak.

4:28 PM- Speaker 1 is pushing their time limit and the bench is dissatisfied. Speaker 2 finally enters the playing ground. Will they be able to finish with a bang?

4:33 PM- Discussion on certificates and policies continue. Speaker 2 is aiming to satisfy the bench.

4:35 PM- The bench seems adamant on admitting arguments based on cases in the compendium and memorials. The Speakers are playing quite a risky game!

4:39 PM- What is a bad tender? Time is running out as the arguments come to a close and the Respondents try to prove their point.

4:41 PM- Did the bench just use the Respondent’s arguments against them? Speaker 2 has to come out of this in the most efficient way possible.

4:44 PM- Accept your mistake and move on or stick to your arguments? That is quite a thin line to walk on!

4:45 PM- “TIME’S UP”- but it is up when the bench says so! Speaker 2 grapples to answer a crucial question raised by the bench.

4:47 PM- Everything stands still as the bench decides whether they are satisfied or not. The silence is quite terrifying.

4:53 PM- Arguments have come to an end. Time for the rebuttals. Will the Claimants be able to make a lasting impact? The bench has asked for two best points. Can they deliver?

4:55 PM- The Bench is impatient and unwilling to listen to anything other than responses to the said arguments. Respondents seek some time to arrange their sur-rebuttal and the same is granted.

4:57 PM- “Make it count”, the wise words to the Respondents on their sur-rebuttals. The Respondents give their very best, albeit at very high speed. And we have come to a close. A thrilling round in a highly charged atmosphere! Now the scoring begins.

COURTROOM-3: Mayflower vs Hunley

3:08 PM- The three judges are well seated in the courtroom. They can be seen engaging in a pleasant conversation. The atmosphere feels welcoming at the moment. It would be interesting to see how the mood changes as the round commences.

3:11 PM- The teams have entered the room and exchanged glances with one another. The tension is visible.

3:15 PM- The judge lays down the procedure as there seems to be a potential conflict of interest. The teams have the option of deciding whether they wish to proceed with a panel of three judges or merely two, considering one of the judges is acquainted with one of the team members.

3:17 PM- The courtroom has taken a slightly dramatic turn. The teams are asked to submit their decision a yellow chit. The court master has been asked to collect the same.

3:18 PM- The teams have decided to proceed with a two-judge bench. The counsel for the claimants has approached the podium. They reflect confidence as they lay down the time allocation and issue distribution for their team.

3:19 PM- The judge seeks clarifications from the counsel regarding one of the authorities cited. The counsel slightly flusters but resumes with clarity.

3:21 PM- “Who were the documents tendered to, counsel?”, the judge asks. The counsel mentions that the facts are silent about the matter.

3:22 PM- The counsel is thrown with another question regarding the facts and they can be seen scanning the materials.

3:25 PM- The counsel repeatedly refers to their transcript. The judge engages with their submissions and bombards them with questions one after another. The panel asks them what their claim is and seems unsatisfied with the answer as they try to tie them in a loop. It would be interesting to see how they navigate the ship.

3:26 PM- The counsel answers well and reverts back to their submissions with ease.

3:27 PM- The judge asks them a question regarding the application of certain rules as cited by the counsel. The counsel can be seen trying their best, as is evident from their frequent hand gestures, to convince the panel with her justification.

3:28 PM- The counsel directs the panel’s attention to the case study to establish how the present matter falls within the rules thus cited. The judge bombards them with another follow-up question. The counsel suffers a slip of tongue and accidentally refers to the arbitrators as ‘counsel’.

3:33 PM- “TIME’S UP!“, holds the court manager but the judges are unhinged in asking questions. The counsel fails to ask for an extension.

3:34 PM- The counsel seeks permission to proceed with their further arguments but is again made to take a halt by the judges as they vehemently say “no!”, being unsatisfied with their answer.

3:35 PM- The counsel hands over a document to the panel, for reference. The panel reminds them of the time constraints.

3:39 PM- Counsel 2 for the claimants walks over and introduces themselves. They appear to be a little tense and speak in a low voice. They approach their team for assistance with their memorial, as the panel asks to be directed to a relevant footnote number.

3:43 PM- The judge asks how the claimants can assume that a particular clause is applicable to their case, “Is it written anywhere in the moot proposition or did you seek any clarification?”. The judge raises his voice and asks for a relevant judgement. The counsel cites a case but the panel sits unconvinced.

3:50 PM- “2 Minutes left”, the court manager announces as the panel engages on facts of the case.

3:53 PM- The counsel successfully summarises their submissions within the stipulated time. The Respondents walk over confidently.

3:55 PM- Counsel 1 of the Respondents says that they disagree with one of the facts stated by the claimants.

3:57 PM- The counsel seems too keen on answering questions as the judge interjects “I have not finished my question!”.

4:04 PM- “Your argument is very circular”, the panel is visibly confused as the counsel fails to establish whether or not arbitrators have the discretion to adopt their own procedure.

4:11 PM- “TIME’S UP” but the panel expresses their reservations as they feel that the counsel is misleading the tribunal, due to her failure to present valid rules under which the present matter falls.

4:15 PM- The panel seeks clarifications regarding definitions presented by the counsel. The counsel cites an authority from their memorial to justify their understanding. The judge highlights a contradiction between their oral submissions and their memorials.

4:20 PM- The counsel summarises their submissions. Counsel 2 moves towards the dias.

4:24 PM- With the incessant questions, the counsel directs the panel to the moot proposition but they struggle to resolve the queries. The panel sees “no way forward” in this argument and thus, urges the counsel to proceed with the next issue.

4:30 PM- “Do you have any judgement to show that the RETLA clause is ambiguously worded?”. The counsel delivers an answer but the judge vocalises his discontentment.

4:35 PM- “I don’t see any merit in this argument”, the judge grants an extension of one minute, anticipating an assuring answer. The counsel answers and concludes his submissions.

4:42 PM- The round comes to an end. The teams collect all the material and move out of the courtroom. The judges are seen interacting with the court managers as they hand over the score-sheets.

COURTROOM-4: Valentina vs Titanic

3:13 PM- The lunch break provided much needed energy as everyone has positively made their way back. The Claimants have begun with their first Speaker giving a very well structured introduction to their speech. They maintain a straight face without a hint of expressions. All clear, no questions so far.

3:16 PM- The claimant side’s speaker 1 has smartly predicted the argument of the other side. Here comes the first question of the round!

3:20 PM- The Judge has posed a question and while the Speaker couldn’t answer it, they highlight the possible irrelevance of the question, to the issue at hand. Expressions are still neutral and composed, even as questions follow.

3:22 PM- The Judge, showcasing their experience, points to the Speaker the potential mistake in citing a very specific case. The Speaker justifies its usage on procedural aspects regardless.

3:28 PM- The Respondents listening to each point intently and seems to be scribbling away important notes to use it to their advantage when their turn arrives.

3:28 PM- The Respondents listening to each point intently and seems to be scribbling away important notes to use it to their advantage when their turn arrives.

3:30 PM- The judge once again posed a similar question as in the last round. The question has left the counsel confused. An interesting question indeed. Speaker 1 has now passed the baton to Speaker 2 from the Claimant’s side.

3:36 PM- Speaker 2 is a steady one. They are taking time with every answer. The judges seem relatively calm, the questioning has decreased.

3:41 PM- 2 MINUTES LEFT ON THE CLOCK! With hands on their chin and deep in thought, the judges pose a question yet again on the existence of any recent cases. It seems that the judges are not too intent on age old cases.

3:43 PM- TIME’S UP! Extension granted to summarise the arguments. The tenor of Speaker 2 was consistent throughout the round. 30 SECONDS LEFT on the extended time.

3:46 PM- Speaker 1 from the respondent’s side has taken the stage. They proceed directly to their arguments. Their speech is complimented with expressive hand gestures which signal their preparedness.

3:51 PM- The speaker seems to be well-versed with the problem. Most of the arguments seem to be based on pure logic and a clear understanding of the problem.

3:53 PM- Despite repeated questions, the Speaker remains calm and composed. The Judges question the persuasive value of cases from other jurisdictions and their probable binding nature.

3:56 PM- The judges seem to have found a loophole in the Speaker’s arguments on the admissibility of cases from other jurisdictions.

4:07 PM- 8 MINUTES ON THE CLOCK! The Speaker on the respondent’s side seems to have lost track and has taken a significant amount of time. The Judge, clearly taking note of this, asks the speaker to call upon their co-counsel for a fair chance to submit their arguments.

4:09 PM- Speaker 2 from the Respondents taking note of the lack of time left to make arguments, speaks at a much faster rate. Clearly they are in a hurry. The Judges continue to prioritise questioning them irrespective of the lack of time.

4:10 PM- However, the Speaker tackles every question. Notably quick on their feet!

4:12 PM- While the Speaker tries to justify their case, they seem to be arguing in a friendly manner. Everyone is smiling at the answers given by the Speaker, even as they continue to try and justify themselves.

4:15 PM- 2 MINUTES HAVE BEEN GRANTED. Two issues left to be discussed. Unfortunate indeed. Speaker 2 is speaking at a visibly faster rate to try and complete their submissions. The judges take note of this and smile as they mark the Speaker accordingly.

4:18 PM- Speaker 2 leaves the podium and everyone is smiling. A slight confusion has occurred with regards to the rebuttals. One minute has been granted by the humble bench to both the teams.

4:20 PM- The round has come to an end. The feedback session has begun. Constructive feedback on the importance of story creation, teammate discussion, timestamps, body language, etc. A mix of positive notes as well as points to improve upon.

COURTROOM-5: Holland vs Beagle

3:08 PM- The second preliminary rounds for the day are set to begin in a few minutes.

3:13 PM- The counsel is very precise with their words and appears confident enough to maintain proper eye contact with the judges. The judges seem to be involved in a small internal discussion while simultaneously going through the written submissions.

3:15 PM- In a turn of events, the judges interrupt the counsel and instruct them to move on with their next submission. Due to the sudden nature of the request, the counsel took a few seconds to regain their composure, after which they proceeded with the next part of the submission.

3:17 PM- And we have the first question! The counsel is seen focusing on the question and behold! Unsurprisingly she manages to answer the judge without the delay of a split second. The judges seem satisfied.

3:19 PM- The second counsel begins with their submission after the requisite permission has been granted by the judge. The claimants are full of confidence as is evident from the way each of them are managing to express their emotions along with their oral submissions.

3:21 PM- Without the intrusion of any questions yet, the counsel is on a ride with their submissions. The judges flip through the written submissions and seems to be deeply engrossed in listening to the arguments by the counsel.

3:25 PM- The judges, after a short round of questioning, instructs the counsel to stick to case laws mentioned in the written memorial only. This came as a consequence of the counsel not being able to elaborate upon a certain point questioned by the judges.

3:31 PM- The judges are increasing the tension in the room by indulging in an interactive questioning of both the facts and the legal knowledge of the counsel.

3:35 PM- The judges seem to be confused about a certain part of the oral submissions of the counsel. The counsel is persistently being questioned by the judges, and from the looks of it, the judges are in no mood to be convinced anytime soon!

3:38 PM- Once again, the counsel makes a certain argument and is subsequently questioned about the absence of those arguments in their written submission, which the judges feel is a very crucial part of the argument.

3:42 PM- The responding counsel starts with their submission. The counsel seeks the permission to proceed ahead with issue 1, 4, and 5.

3:45 PM- In an attempt to lighten the tense environment, the judges jokingly ask the counsel, “if given a chance, which one of us would you want to be removed from the room?”. The counsel continues with their submissions.

3:47 PM- The judges seem very academically critical of any irrelevant information that may have been added in the written submissions as they repetitively question the counsel on the relevance of the points mentioned or talked about in the submission.

3:50 PM- The judges seem to have gotten comfortable with the questioning and are gradually focusing on picking apart every part of the counsel’s arguments. The counsel seems to be losing track of the arguments but quickly regains their composure and finishes with the submission.

3:54 PM- The second responding counsel starts with their opening statement.

3:55 PM- In a surprising turn of events, the judges have started their questioning from the first minute itself. The way the counsel managed to retain their composure and stay unfazed is appreciable.

3:58 PM- The counsel appears to be overwhelmed by the repetitive questioning, further, the fact that the judges are not expressive in their statements does not seem to help the situation for the respondents.

4:00 PM- It seems that the judges have some serious questions, since the counsel is not being given the permission to proceed to the next issue without sufficiently answering the questions and doubts of the judges.

4:02 PM- With 10 minutes left to the submission, the counsel is instructed to shift to the next issue by the judges.

4:05PM- The counsel seems to be stuck with a certain argument as they take a couple of seconds to restart speaking after being unable to answer a certain question by the judge. The judges were understanding of the situation and instructed the counsel to proceed whenever comfortable.

4:07 PM- With 5 minutes remaining, the respondents stand and end their submissions on a warm and cheery note with a presentation of their final prayer.

4:08 PM- The counsel from the claimant side takes hold of the podium and makes the necessary rebuttals in a minute. After which the responding counsel walks up to the podium and confidently makes their points against the rebuttal.

4:10 PM- The rounds have ended. The judges seem to be engrossed with taking a final look at the written submissions and are individually deliberating. The parties seem sufficiently tense for it to be evident on their faces. An exhilarating round indeed!

COURTROOM-6: Skate vs Nautilus

3:11 PM- The judges are seated, participants have arrived. The volunteers are making sure everything is in place. The rounds are set to begin anytime now.

3:15 PM- As the judges give a nod to start the rounds, the counsel for the claimant starts off by briefing the bench on the facts. The counsel sign-posts the arguments and starts with their submission with the bench’s permission.

3:18 PM- The bench seems to be focusing on the claimant’s memo as the counsel makes contentions on claimant’s behalf.

3:23 PM- As the counsel for the claimant makes their submissions, the respondents are preparing for their replies. They are listening intently to their opponent’s arguments.

3:29 PM- The co-counsel is arguing for issue 3 while citing relevant legislations. They seem very confident and is engaging the bench by referring to the memo and the moot problem.

3:34 PM- The bench is grilling the co-counsel on the 3rd issue as the courtroom managers indicate that the time is running up. The judge clarifies the question and re-frames it as they seem to be looking for a specific answer to their question.

3:45 PM- The time is up for the claimant, the bench gives additional time to the counsel to finish their arguments.

3:46 PM- The counsel asks for extra time for concluding the arguments, however the bench denied the same.

3:49 PM- As the respondents were starting with their submissions they were interrupted by the judge, who sought clarification on the respondent’s main contentions.

3:56 PM- The bench points out certain facts in the fact sheet to oppose the reasoning of the counsel. The judge demands the counsel to further substantiate their submission.

4:00 PM- The Counsel is trying to define the scope of the issues they are dealing with. With the bench’s permission they sum up their argument and move to next issue.

4:04 PM- The Co-counsel greets the bench and continues with the further issues.

4:06 PM- The bench wants the counsel to support their arguments with a legislation. The co-counsel attempts to answer the bench by citing various provisions and precedents in the respondent’s favour.

4:13 PM- As the time limit is exhausting for the respondent’s side, the bench poses questions.

4:19 PM- Only one-minute of extension is provided to the counsel, they fast track through the last issue and state their prayer to the bench.

4:21 PM- The arguments from both sides are over. The bench seems eager to hear rebuttals from the parties.

4:26 PM- The rounds are over. The judges make themselves comfortable with friendly chatter among themselves, as they discuss the participants’ performance and scoring.

COURTROOM-7: Argonaut vs Fulton

3:09 PM- Welcome back, dearest readers! It is showtime again. The judges and the teams have settled down. The rounds shall start shortly!

3:14 PM- The judges have green-flagged the start of the rounds. The first counsel from the claimants side has taken to the podium.

3:16 PM- The counsel has kickstarted their arguments with the contention surrounding the number of arbitrators. They have put forth firm grounds to substantiate their position on the said issue. They sure sound convincing!

3:22 PM- The counsel has kept numb after a lengthy question that came up from the bench. The judge reframed their question and the counsel attempts to answer, but nearabout fails.

3:24 PM- The judge catches the counsel making a mistake with the name of a legislation, the counsel is prompt in rectifying their mistake. Close save!

3:26 PM- One of the judges has walked up to the counsel to seek clarification with respect to the documents presented by the counsel. This just gets more and more interesting by each second!

3:28 PM- Extension of 2 minutes has been granted to sum up the arguments. The counsel is interrupted by the bench who seeks the reasoning on the applicability of the law to the facts at hand.

3:31 PM- The counsel starts off by apologising on the part of their co-counsel for not being able to answer certain queries.

3:37 PM- “If you carry a bottle of water for a long time in the sun, it will get evaporated” the counsel seems to be resorting to metaphors to answer the questions raised by the bench. One of the judges loved the water example and continues it further. This just gets better!

3:40 PM- The counsel seems at ease, with a hint of smile on their face, which is commendable looking at the back to back grilling they are being subjected to. Let's see if that plays in their favour, or not!

3:44 PM- The counsel seems to have lost their grip over their arguments, owing to the multiple questions as there is silence on their part. The judges are kind enough to give him a minute to gather their thoughts and answer.

3:48 PM- Next up are the respondents, who have started by greeting the bench. They directly move to the contentions. They have begun by addressing the bench with the issue of insurance certificate.

3:53 PM- One of the judges is seen cracking their knuckles, maybe getting ready for some intense grilling?

3:58 PM- Ending the arguments on the insurance certificate, the counsel has moved on to the argument pertaining to RETLA clause. Within a minute, the judges, sipping their coffee, are ready with more questions.

4:03 PM- The counsel has concluded with their submissions. But wait, the judges have a two-fold question for them before the next counsel comes up. They are allowed to answer at a later stage.

4:05 PM- The second counsel seems not so well versed with their arguments. They seem a bit clueless. The judge is reframing their question, trying to illicit a satisfactory answer.

4:11 PM- The co-counsels have sent a chit to their aid. But to no avail. The judge guides the counsel to their memorial and has been posing numerous close-ended questions.

4:12 PM- Phew! The last few minutes were quite stressful even to the spectators. The counsel finally moves on to the remaining of their contentions.

4:14 PM- We can see the co-counsels rubbing their forehead, looks like they are more stressed than the counsel at the podium. On the other hand, the claimants are seen chit-chatting among themselves, not quite attentive to the arguments of their opponents.

4:17 PM- “Are you saying the three of us are not competent to sit before you and adjudicate the matter?” asks one of the judges. The rest of the bench smiles. The opposite side smirks, probably deriving joy out of the grilling.

4:20 PM- The judges seems confused with what the counsel is wishing from the bench, and seeks a sharp clarification. The Bench seems to have some tricky questions up their sleeves.

4:23 PM- The claimants are back for the rebuttal rounds. They start by answering the question which they had reserved for later. This might earn them some cookie points!

4:25 PM- Stick to the points raised by the claimants in their rebuttals, clarifies the bench to the respondents who come ready for their sur-rebuttals.

4:30 PM- The respondents seem to have forgotten one of the questions by the Bench. They wish to return to the podium for the same. The judges are impressed by the memory, or are they?

4:34 PM- With this, Round 2 has come to an end. It was a thrilling experience witnessing such great rounds. Feedback session has commenced.

COURTROOM-8: Argus vs Dreadnaught

3:08 PM- We are back after a hot lunch. The judges seem as lively as they can be. With cold juices on the table, our judges are well prepared for hot-headed rounds.

3:10 PM- The participants have entered the room. They are going through their sheets for one last time. They seem to be in a heated discussion. Are they discussing their arguments or the nap they wish they could have had? Only time will tell.

3:14 PM- The Claimants are off to a shaky start. The judges interrupt in the first 15 seconds and demand the restatement of issues and not the facts.

3:20 PM- Two back-to-back questions from the Bench and the speaker has started fumbling. As they flip through their pages, the researcher flips through theirs to find the right answer. Oh, if only they could whisper the right answer !

3:23 PM- The judges pointed out an error in understanding and the Claimant had to admit to it. Seconds feel like years as the room falls silent. The researcher covers their gasp as if to hide their horror.

3:26 PM- With each tiny slip-up, the opponents make notes. They seem prepared to exploit the loopholes left behind.

3:30 PM- The second speaker has now taken the podium only to be questioned in the first 2 minutes. The Res have now resorted to ease up. With their arms on their chairs, they seem as cool as one can be.

3:32 PM- As the judges continue their line of questioning, the first speaker can be seen mouthing the answers. She quickly jots something down on a note and sends it over to the speaker.

3:35 PM- The Speaker fumbles and comes to a brief halt. The judges help her complete the sentence and there, she goes again. She seems anxious and has lost the command over her voice that she initially had. The submissions now sound monotonous.

3:41 PM- On being asked whether the judges would prefer a brief account of the facts, they received a cold response. The judges said, “We are well versed with the facts. Please, just proceed.”

3:43 PM- The Speaker’s throat has dried up and he continues coughing. The judges offer him water only to start their questioning as soon as he takes the first sip.

3:44 PM- Our judges ask why something should be literally interpret when the law that they are talking about is silent about the same? Is this a question to disrupt the speaker’s calm or is it one that is seemingly simple yet infinitely complex.

3:45 PM- The responding counsel requests to be allowed to continue. They have no answer. The judge smiles and allows him to proceed and take a breather.

3:54 PM- “Counsel, who are you actually arguing for ?” asked the judges. “I am genuinely sorry”, replied the speaker. One can hear the death knell ringing from a mile away or is it just the respondent side’s bellowing heartbeats.

3:58 PM- The judges ask the Speaker 2 to proceed to the next point. The team is not as calm as they once were.

4:06 PM- The judges asked a question and the counsel started fumbling. His researcher comes to his aid with a sheet of paper and whispers an answer that he believes was right.

4:12 PM- The Claimants utilise their time for rebuttal and attempt to expose their opponent’s glaring weaknesses.

4:17 PM- The Respondents were prepared with their questions and efficiently utilised their time reserved for sur-rebuttals.

DAY 1 | 24TH MARCH 2023

PRELIMINARY ROUNDS - SESSION 2 CONCLUDES!

We have come to the end of an engaging second session. Stay tuned the SCC Online Blog for constant updates!

NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot(IMAM) (@NLUO_IMAM) March 24, 2023

DAY 1 | 24TH MARCH 2023

PRELIMINARY ROUNDS

SESSION 3

COURTROOM-1: Nautilus vs Bounty

05:28 PM- And WE’RE BACK! The session is all set to begin as the judges and teams have taken their places and are settling down right now.

05:29 PM- The judges have given the permission to Speaker 1 of the claimant to proceed. The counsel has taken the podium and has started his arguments for the first issue.

05:33 PM- The judges are looking at the documents as the counsel continues with the submissions. Time is running out as the judges are directing trick questions at the first counsel.

5:41 PM- Time for the claimants seems to be running faster than anticipated as the first counsel struggles to move to the next issue.

5:45 PM- Time’s up! As the sun sets in Cuttack, it is time for the counsel to summarise his arguments and make way for the second counsel. But not before he answers the queries of the judges. As a result, they are granted an extension.

5:48 PM- The second counsel takes the podium and starts with the arguments for the remaining issues at hand.

5:52 PM- The judges are leaning forward and being vigilant. They are engaging in questioning and counter-questioning whilst sipping lemon ice-tea. The session is moving smoothly.

5:57 PM- The judges make an observation and Speaker 2 thanks them for the same. The judges nod and the arguments continue. The judges now direct the counsel to move to the next issue.

6:00 PM- The counsel struggles a bit while making a point as she is presented with a trick question but later answers it satisfactorily.

6:09 PM- The counsel for the respondents takes the place at the podium and arranges the relevant documents. They greet the bench and give an insight into the estimated time allocation for the arguments. The submissions begin.

6:14 PM- Speaker 1 continues with the arguments confidently. The judges trick the counsel with the same question that they had posed in front of the counsel of the claimants. An unexpected move! Interesting.

6:22 PM- The bench and the counsel seem to be stuck on an issue and are going back and forth with the reasoning and questions. Finally, the counsel moves to the next issue.

6:26 PM- With the time running out, one of the judges moves directly to a critical question. The counsels seemed to be a bit taken aback.

6:28 PM- The second speaker now takes place at the dais as the first speaker moves back after finishing the submissions. The counsel continues the submissions with the remaining issues.

6:33 PM- The claimants can be seen gearing up for the rebuttals as they simultaneously listen to the arguments of the counsel for the respondents. The judges continue with their queries and questions.

6:38 PM- To make up for the paucity of time, the counsel refers the judges to the written submissions, along with the oral arguments. Upon this request, the judges surprise the speaker with new questions taken form the memos.

6:44 PM- The second counsel takes up the challenge and continues to answer the questions in a calm and composed manner. The speaker then moves on to summarise the arguments.

6:47 PM- Rebuttal! The counsel for the claimants start strong and continue to give out their arguments fluently.

6:48 PM- It’s a race against the clock, but the Rebuttals are completed within the time limit and the judges call upon the counsel of the respondents for sur-rebuttal.

6:49 PM- SUR-REBUTTAL BEGINS! The opposing counsel comes forward and exudes confidence while delivering the sur-rebuttals. They too manage to finish it on time.

6:50 PM- “Great round teams!”, “Awesome round!”, “Best of Luck”, and on such positive notes, the oral submissions of this session come to an end. The teams slowly vacate the courtroom as the judges proceed to fill up the marking sheets for the rounds.

COURTROOM-2: Fulton vs Hunley

5:47 PM- And we are off to a start with Session 3. The judges are now well versed with the arguments and the participants can expect an increasingly unyielding bench.

5:50 PM- Speaker 1 from the Claimants takes immediate control of the room. The Respondent listens attentively, taking down what they intend to use against the Claimants.

5:51 PM- Issue one is quickly covered without much opposition from the bench. Questions start with the second issue.

5:53 PM- The law is in the details! Certificate or policy? Simple words but enough to make anyone go around in circles.

5:54 PM- The bench is smiling while looking at the memorial. What might be the reason? Speaker 1 continues with their arguments without any hesitation.

5:58 PM- Speaker 1 has a tendency to look around while speaking. Are they the only ones getting distracted? It is quite difficult to pay attention when arguments are unable to engage to their full potential.

6:05 PM- Speaker 2 of the Respondents take the floor. The opening statement seems weak but they gain momentum after receiving encouraging smiles from the bench.

6:09 PM- Speaker 2 cites an old case which has not been mentioned in their written submissions. The bench is quite unwilling to accept the same in light of recent developments in the field but Speaker 2 fails to satisfy.

6:13 PM- The room is losing the energy that Speaker 1 brought in. But the bench is intently listening, eager to ask questions whenever such an opening arises.

6:19 PM- “30 SECONDS LEFT!” Speaker 2 seems to be unable to answer the bench’s query with confidence. The bench allows them to summarise and conclude their main submissions. Time for the Respondents to show their worth!

6:24 PM- And we start off with the Respondents. Speaker 1 seems quite confident and is gesticulating to enunciate their points.

6:29 PM- Speaker 1 of the Respondents tries to use the arguments of the bench in their own favour. However, the bench is quick to reject the same eliciting laughs throughout the bench and the courtroom.

6:35 PM- The Respondents seem to have agreed to a proposition against their favour. Will they be able to manoeuvre their way out of it by demonstrating an exception that separates them from the rest?

6:39 PM- “TIME’S UP” but Speaker 1 asks for an extension to complete their issues. However, they leave certain unanswered questions for their co-counsel to the bench’s dissatisfaction.

6:44 PM- The bench is losing interest in the arguments. Hopefully, the Speaker can revamp their pace and answer instead of deflecting to their co-counsel.

6:46 PM- Speaker 2 has taken the dias and has been asked to speak a bit louder. The bench is finding it difficult to understand the arguments of this Speaker.

6:53 PM- The bench is trying to get clarity on what exactly the arguments of the Respondents are. They are refusing to admit any argument which is not mentioned in the memorial. Speaker 2 finally concedes and agrees to the bench pointing out the fallacy of their arguments.

7:03 PM- The slow-paced round finally comes to an end. Will the momentum change with the rebuttals and sur-rebuttals? One minute is given to both sides.

7:04 PM- The Claimants try their very best to engage in a very short duration of time. The Respondents respond but the bench does not accept the arguments.

7:06 PM- Session 3 comes to a close. The judges now have to decide on the scores! A thrilling time indeed!

COURTROOM-3: Titanic vs Dreadnought

5:23 PM- The teams have entered the court room and exchanged non-verbal pleasantries with the panel of judges.

5:25 PM- “Claimants, whenever you are ready”, the judge exclaims. Counsel 1 of the claimants comes forward. Prelim Round 3 BEGINS!

5:30 PM- The counsel confidently cites the Hague convention and defines the discharge code, while engaging with the judges. The counsel, however, speaks over the judge in the middle of his question, and answers unclearly.

5:37 PM- The judge asks to be guided to the relevant part of a case study, on which the claimants seems to be arguing. Though the counsel does not specifically direct the panel, they manage to provide a justifiable explanation. “Understood, please proceed”, says the judge.

5:39 PM- “TIME’S UP”, Counsel 1 successfully concludes his submissions and Counsel 2 seeks permission to approach the podium.

5:43 PM- The panel directs the counsel to Page 8 of the Case Study, in perusal of relevant arbitration clauses. However, this exchange remains open-ended as the counsel moves forward with the next argument, with the panel’s approval.

5:47 PM- The counsel is thrown with a fundamental question and stands silent, visibly perplexed. The judge asks to be directed to the paragraph of their memorial which cites relevant rules.

5:53 PM- The counsel urges the tribunal to consider the merits of the case as far as the respondent’s rejection of summary disposal is concerned. The panel hands over a document to the counsel, as the latter addresses their issues.

5:59 PM- “TIME’S UP” announces the Courtroom manager. However, the counsel continues with full zeal and the bench too, engages equally.

6:04 PM- Counsel 1 of the Respondents walks over and demands the panel’s attention with his confidence and knowledge of law.

6:06 PM- The bench directs the court to a pertinent paragraph of the case study, to assess what rules shall be applicable in the present case. The counsel delivers a convincing answer and addresses every follow-up question as well.

6:09 PM- “Ma’am arbitrator and Sir arbitrator”, addresses the counsel and proceeds with each submission, without having to repeatedly read through their transcript. The bench looks pleased.

6:12 PM- The bench asks if the bench chooses to not consider their argument, would the Respondents be willing to concede and move forward? The counsel smiles and answers “If there is no other resort, then yes”.

6:15 PM- The counsel when posed with a question on one of their issues, the counsel engages with relevant rules and satisfies the tribunal.

6:20 PM- The counsel asks for an extension of three minutes to conclude their arguments. The bench permits. The counsel quickly provides the law and factual analysis for their his penultimate issue. The bench chooses not to hear the last issue, due to time constraints.

6:22 PM- Counsel 2 of the Respondents moves forward and adopts a brilliant strategy. They begin by elaborating their co-counsel’s last unaddressed point. The bench permits.

6:25 PM- The bench bombards the counsel with questions. The counsel cautiously listens and resolves all queries, thus, successfully evading inconvenient loops.

6:32 PM- “Can you show us authority on your claim for the (relevant) clause?”, asks the judge. Meanwhile, the hospitality team brings coffee on the request of one of the judges.

6:38 PM- “30 seconds left”, holds the Court manager. The counsel is granted an extension for their last issue.

6:39 PM- The judge interestingly asks a question while gesturing air quotes. The counsel quickly answers and brings their submissions to an end.

6:42 PM- The claimants are invited to present their rebuttals, which they do in a very concise manner.

6:43 PM- The respondents come up with their sur-rebuttals and contradict the claimant's contentions.

6:45 PM- THE ROUND COMES TO AN END. Teams leave the courtroom, interacting amongst themselves. The judges hand over memorials and score-sheets to the court managers.

COURTROOM-4: Beagle vs Eastland

Prelim round-1 stands postponed to Day - 3.

COURTROOM-5: Carpathia vs Scharnhorst

4:48 PM- the parties are seated and the third preliminary rounds for the day are all set to begin. Meanwhile, the judges are taking their time to go through the written submission and documents on the table.

4:55 PM- The counsel starts with the first issue and tries to draw the attention of the judges to the specific fact in conflict. The counsel is trying patiently to maintain proper eye contact with the judges whilst trying to be specific in his arguments without having a break of confusion.

4:57 PM- A few minutes into the round and we have our first question! Just like the previous two rounds, the judges are presently very critical of even the slightest disparity they find.

5:00 PM- With the change of the hour, there is a sudden change in the environment inside the courtroom too. The counsel is going through their notes persistently in the hopes of finding an apt answer to impress the judges.

5:02 PM- With the courtroom hitting the 20 minute mark, the judges present their last question to the counsel. The counsel falters and while they do seem to have an answer, they seem to be having problems in framing and presenting it in front of the judges. The counsel presents his last submissions and takes a seat.

5:07 PM- The counsel seems to be having some difficulties with certain factual disparities that the judges seem to have pointed out in their written submission. Though, putting aside the critical discussion for the time being, the judges ask the counsel to proceed.

5:14 PM- The courtroom has a pin drop silence aside from the counsel giving their arguments. For the past couple minutes even the judges did not interrupt the speaker or ask any questions.

5:21 PM- The judges further question the counsel on certain oral facts mentioned. The counsel is accepting of their mistake and makes the requisite clarifications.

5:22 PM- With the time for submission coming to an end, the counsel requests for an extension to sum up their points and makes a final summarisation of his arguments. The judges seem sufficiently satisfied for the time being.

5:25 PM- The respondent counsel, after the requisite permission from the judges, begin with their submission. They make a brief summary of the issues under question, after which they mention that they shall be dealing with the first two issues only.

5:28 PM- The judges present the first question to the respondent counsel. The counsel seems unfazed and after seeking a minor clarification from the judge, proceeds with his answer.

5:30 PM- The judges try to question the counsel over certain factual aspects of the submission, the counsel very skillfully tries to satisfy the judges by directing them to the relevant parts in their written submission.

5:36 PM- The judges and the counsel seem to be on a loop of questioning. The judge seems to have caught the counsel lacking in a certain part of the oral submission, due to which he is now bombarded with similar further questions by the other judges too.

5:38 PM- While the counsel tries to put full effort into answering the question and even seeks requisite clarifications, the judges seem too interested in the issue to let go of it. Let us see how long this discussion goes on for.

5:42 PM- The counsel rests his arguments for both his issues and takes a seat. The second counsel seeks permission from the bench to proceed with his submission.

5:46 PM- In an evident display of skill, the second counsel begins their submission with a permission from the judge to answer the question that was directed towards the first counsel a few minutes ago. The judges allow and seem satisfied with the answer provided by the second counsel.

5:49 PM- The judges are actively focusing on the submission of the counsel, even though they have not made a single question in the past 3 minutes. The lack of questions does seem to help the counsel regain their composure.

5:52 PM- The judges yet again pointed out an irregularity in the oral and written submission of the respondents, in the furtherance of which the counsel exclaims that the disparity exists since their oral submission came as a reply to the submissions of the claimants. The judges seem satisfied.

5:57 PM- The time for the counsel ends and the judges very graciously provide them with an extension of one minute to sum up their arguments. The counsel takes a seat. The rebuttals begin. The claimants seem to have captured the interest of the judges with the points made in the rebuttal. The claimant counsel further seeks certain clarifications from the respondents.

5:59 PM- The respondents very actively make their submissions against the rebuttals made by the claimants. This is their last opportunity to earn credit from the judges. The judges make no further questions and thank the parties for the round.

COURTROOM-6: Clermont vs Argus

5:42 PM- The Judges and Participants have taken their seat. The atmosphere is tense. The proceedings are yet to start.

5:45 PM- The judges are listening with full attention to the first counsel for the claimants. The counsel has started on the first issue of the case.

5:47 PM- The first question has been asked and the counsel answers the same with full confidence. The Judges seem to be content with the answer given by counsel 1.

5:51 PM- The counsel has referred to a relevant case law similar to the present case. The counsel proceeds to ask for permission to proceed to the next issue but the judges decide to continue grilling him.

5:53 PM- The counsel has started their arguments on the second Issue. The atmosphere in the court room is tense.

5:56 PM- The counsel wants to continue with his submissions but he is continuously interrupted by the judges. The counsel looks a little frustrated.

6:00 PM- The counsel moves on to the next issue providing a threefold argument for the same. The judges do not let him continue and bombard them with questions.

6:05 PM- The counsel seems to be flustered by the question of the judges. He takes a small break and continues with answering the question confidently.

6:08 PM- The Courtroom managers mention that only five minutes are left for the arguments to end. The counsel asks for an extension and is granted the same.

6:11 PM- TIMES UP !!! With only 2 minutes left the counsel has been asked to sum up his arguments in the same time.

6:16 PM- The second counsel begins with their arguments. Their assertive voice echoes in the courtroom as they continue confidently and the Judges look convinced by their arguments.

COURTROOM-7: Lusitania vs Mayflower

5:42 PM- Welcome one, welcome all! We have reached the second half of this wonderful day, yet the batteries are fully charged. This is Session 3 of IMAM 2023, from Court Room 7.

5:43 PM- The claimants have opened their arguments and are taking the judges through the summary of their upcoming arguments.

5:45 PM- The other counsels in the room are seen jotting down certain points, prepping for their upcoming rounds. The judges are flipping through the documents infront of them, as the counsel leads them to particular paragraphs of the case study.

5:48 PM- The respondents are engaging in something which looks like the game of Chinese whisper. The first question from the judge brings back their attention to the proceedings.

5: 50 PM- Madam Arbitrator, sits with crossed arms, and is listening paying close attention to the arguments put forth.

5:56 PM- The counsel is making strong arguments, with a very relaxed body language, which indicates that they are well versed with their contentions. The judges however have a lot of clarifications.

5:58 PM- The discussion now surrounds the claim of a summary trial, as against a regular trial. The counsel is doing a great job at answering the witty questions of the Bench.

6:01 PM- Being granted with a short extension, the counsel hurries at putting forward her remaining contentions. The second counsel has picked up the baton.

6:04 PM- The second counsel speaks with a gentle tone. When posed with a question, they reserve their right to answer it along with their next submission.

6:07 PM- The deliberations are going smoothly, with the Bench asking minimum questions to the counsel. They seem to be convinced with what is argued before them.

6:19 PM- The claimants have concluded their submissions. Its now the respondents’ turn to convince the Bench of their stance.

6:23 PM- The Bench enquires repeatedly on the question of procedure and the appropriate seat of arbitration. They were not provided with good enough answers.

6:27 PM- The discussion has now moved to the insurance certificate. The counsel states multiple judgements to substantiate their argument on the question of such certificate.

6:32 PM- The researcher is asked to point out the exact pages which contain the judgements which are being cited. Time is running out fast, the counsel is lagging behind. They must pick up speed.

6:35 PM- To tackle the remaining issues, here comes the second counsel for the respondents. Their focus will be on the bill of lading.

6:38 PM- When asked about the citation of a particular case law, the counsel flips through their memorial and points it out for the Bench’s perusal.

6:44 PM- “Perfect!” remarks the Bench, and poses a follow-up question. The counsel tries to clarify their position, but ends up saying “the counsel has no answer.” Lets see how that pans out for them.

6: 47 PM- The counsel concludes with their prayer. The rebuttals begin!

6:50 PM- The respondents are back with their sur-rebuttals. They are doing a great job at quoting the rebuttals, and establishing their position on such claims.

6:53 PM- The rounds have come to a conclusion, what a roller coaster! Hope the readers had a good time being a part of this courtroom.

COURTROOM-8: Lenin vs Savannah

5:24 PM- Welcome to the third round of IMAM. The Claimants are off to a great start. The speaker is confident and seems imperturbable. The judges are listening with rapt attention as the speaker transitions from one limb of their argument to the other.

5:28 PM- The judge asks the first question and the speaker seems undisturbed. The speaker gives a concise and convincing answer.

5:30 PM- The judges are back in their element. Their barrage of questions knows no bounds. The speaker is calm and composed and continues to direct the Bench to the relevant portions in the memo.

5:32 PM- The Speaker tactfully deflects a question and promises to answer the same in the process of establishing the other prongs of his argument.

5:34 PM- As the speaker explains the details of a CISF contract, the judges equip themselves with the questions. The Speaker confidently without any further delay stays true to his statement and asks the judges if they have any further questions.

5:37 PM- The speaker’s preparation is reflected by their commendable composure. They confidently direct the Bench to the relevant portions of the Memo and further elaborate on the same.

5: 38 PM- The Responding team has begun their own preparations. Various sheets of paper are sprawled across the Respondents’ table. They seem equally prepared. They might have found a worthy match!

5:40 PM- TIME UP! The Speaker requests for a minute’s extension. The judges award him. The Speaker is more than grateful.

5:41 PM- The bench had a question. However, they hesitated to ask the same and asked the Speaker to continue. They seem convinced.

5:43 PM- TIME’S UP. A question has been asked. The Speaker, unfazed, acknowledges that the time has elapsed and that he would want to answer. The Bench allows him to give an answer irrespective of the time left.

5:45 PM- Twenty minutes have elapsed since the beginning of the round and it is now that the Speaker has come to a halt. A question put by the Bench has taken the Speaker by surprise. He makes an error and the Bench quickly points it out. The Bench has yet again proven their command over the subject.

5:47 PM- The Co-counsel has begun speaking. The judges have not asked any questions.

5:50 PM- It seems as if the Bench can foresee the argument’s direction.

5:51 PM- The judge calmly takes a sip of their coffee and starts a barrage of questions. The second speaker fumbles and requests the Bench to allow them to continue with their arguments.

5:53 PM- The respondents have their eyes fixed on their notes. With new notes pasted on their sheets, they seem to be brewing but the right recipe for a victory.

5:57 PM- The Claimants make their final submissions and get seated. The Responding team demands the Courtroom managers to indicate time individually. This is a special request. Maybe, the Respondents need that clarity in order to present their multifaceted arguments.

6:01 PM- The judges have begun their line of questioning. The Bench has an insatiable appetite for tricky questions but it seems as if none of the speakers have been able to fulfill their needs.

6:06 PM- The Speaker seems to have lost the judges. Will they be able to revive their interest ? The speaker, in a desperate attempt to do the same, asks if the Bench has any question. While two hesitate, Madam Arbitrator gives them yet another opportunity.

6:09 PM- The first Speaker from the Claimants side, starts scribbling on a piece of paper. Is it the light that they were looking for at the end of the dark tunnel? Was it dark in the first place?

6:12 PM- The Bench interrupted the Speaker while they attempted to answer a question and asked for yet another clarification. The Respondent team members look at their teammate who is being mercilessly questioned by the Bench.

6:14 PM- It’s a race against the clock, the speaker requests an extension, the bench however refused. The Speaker had to end their submissions for that issue.

6: 16 PM- The Co-counsel has begun their submission. This time, the bench sits back and takes their time with questions.

6:22 PM- Seconds seem like hours and hours extend into days as the Speaker attempts to inch closer towards the end of their submissions. Every passing second without a question seems oddly bare.

6:23 PM- The speaker did not anticipate this complete absence of any questions, is taken aback and starts fumbling. The bench seems to be playing with the psyche of the speakers by changing their pattern of questioning.

6:25 PM- The First Speaker from the Claimants side continues to jot his points down. The question is whether he would be able to encapsulate his thoughts and present before the clock runs out when it comes to rebuttals.

6: 26 PM- The bumpy ride has come to an end and the second speaker for Respondent moves to their prayers. Their confidence, once faltering, now now seems to have made its comeback.

6:27 PM- The Claimants begin their rebuttal with the statement, “The Respondents mischaracterised the issue.” The Court Managers interrupt for the first time in the entire day. “You did not have any time left.” Dismay evidently takes over the speakers’ faces as they come to the realisation that they had not asked for time for rebuttals.

6:29 PM- The Bench comes to the Claimant’s rescue. Such is the game of chance that the Bench awards the speaker a minute to sum his rebuttals up. Rejuvenated, the speaker asks his questions. But he returned hoping he had a few more seconds on the clock.

6:30 PM- The Respondents had what the Claimants did not, i.e., time sur- rebuttals. With four minutes on the clock, they make a rather strong comeback.

6:32 PM- Time has elapsed and the Bench thanks the participants with a smile on their faces. The judges, clearly exhausted, demand a cup of coffee and the participants, clearly drained vacate the room for a break.

DAY 1 | 24TH MARCH 2023

PRELIMINARY ROUNDS - SESSION 3 CONCLUDES!

We have come to the end of an engaging second session. Stay tuned the SCC Online Blog for constant updates!

NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot(IMAM) (@NLUO_IMAM) March 24, 2023

DAY 1 | 24TH MARCH 2023

PRELIMINARY ROUNDS

SESSION 4

COURTROOM-1: Carpathia vs Holland

7:17 PM- What a day it has been! We have finally arrived at the last session for today. The teams have taken their seats and are now waiting for the judges as they go over their arguments one more time.

7:20 PM- The judges have arrived. All rise for the judges! The first counsel for the claimants takes the podium. They proceed to the issues directly.

7:23 PM- The session begins with a good flow of arguments as the judges go through the documents provided to them. We are yet to see where the session goes provided the fact that after 3 full sessions, the judges are very well versed with the matter. It will be an interesting run.

7:26 PM- The judges, without delay started with the questions, seeking clarifications and clearing up queries, leaving no stones unturned. The counsel pauses for a few seconds before they proceed to answer them.

7:30 PM- The respondents are observing the submissions with utmost attention. The CRM indicates that the time is running out. The arguments by Speaker 1 continue.

7:35 PM- Upon being asked by the judges, the counsel replies, “the respondents do not have a claim”, to which the judges correct him by stating that the counsel should first focus on building their own arguments first. The counsel apologises and carries on. Phew! Close call.

7:35 PM- Upon being asked by the judges, the counsel replies, “the respondents do not have a claim”, to which the judges correct him by stating that the counsel should first focus on building their own arguments first. The counsel apologises and carries on. Phew! Close call.

7:36 PM- The second counsel for the claimants takes the podium to put forward their arguments for the remaining issues. Speaker 2 begins with the submissions.

7:45 PM- Here comes a tricky question! The counsel falls silent for a few seconds. The courtroom is immersed in pin-drop silence. Slowly, the counsel starts speaking again but the answer does not satisfy the judges as it is met with more counter-questions.

7:50 PM- The judges have a good laugh at the irony of the phrase “good faith insurance company” and move forward with the questions. The CRM indicates that the time is up! But the counsel is allowed an extension.

7:54 PM- The first counsel for the respondent now takes the place in front of the judges and states the issues clearly. The submissions begin and the speaker confidently leads the room through the arguments.

7:56 PM- The judges warn the counsel to refrain from jumping from one issue to another resulting in only superficial discussion of all the issues, unless there’s a connection between them. The counsel apologises and carries on.

8:00 PM- The judges seem intrigued by the arguments of the counsel upon the sudden mention of an Indian case and proceed with clearing their queries on the same.

8:05 PM- The second counsel for the respondents now takes the place at the podium to present the remaining issues at hand. Speaker 2 starts with a bold voice and it echoes through the room. A sudden rush of energy!

8:15 PM- The grilling continues in full swing simultaneous to the arguments being put forth by the counsel. A few minutes remain and the time management looks good from the respondent’s side.

8:22 PM- And TIME’S UP! But the judges continued questioning which resulted in an automatic extension to the counsel of the respondents.

8:26 PM- The counsel has concluded the arguments. The judges advise the counsel of the claimants for the rebuttal. REBUTTAL BEGINS!

8:30 PM- The sur-rebuttals were clean and concise and ended timely. The judges smiled at both the teams and said “Good job! Well done teams.” They also smiled to themselves for they knew this was the last session for today. Oh, What a day! And with this, the fourth session and the second day of IMAM comes to an end!

COURTROOM-2: Lenin vs Skate

7:29 PM- Session 4 starts; the most difficult round yet. The Bench is clear on what they expect and the participants have also borne the brunt of excessive grilling. Will they persevere through the last round of the day?

7:31 PM- Speaker 1 of the Claimants seems to be in no hurry. They take their time explaining their structure and a brief summary of facts before proceeding to the issues.

7:33 PM- Speaker 1’s speed of presenting arguments has suddenly increased, giving no opening to the bench to ask questions.

7:35 PM- Speaker 1 is very eager to answer the question presented and categorically states that they do not agree to the point raised. A very bold move but it seems to have paid off! The bench is satisfied and has given permission to proceed.

7:38 PM- One phrase-one question-multiple answers. Which is the correct one? The bench is careful not to showcase any indication of their satisfaction in this regard.

7:40 PM- The bench disagrees with the argument of Speaker 1. Will they be able to answer according to what the bench wants to hear?

7:45 PM- “TIME’S UP”, but an extension is given subject to whether Speaker 1 can answer one thing on procedure! The importance of this moment cannot be emphasised upon enough!

7:48 PM- Speaker 2 comes in to take over the momentum of their submissions. But the bench does not seem much interested in the arguments presented. Instead the bench re-poses the questions their predecessor was unable to answer.

7:52 PM- The bench is going back to the basics on the applicability of international covenants. This is the optimum time for Speaker 2 to show their grasp over the law.

7:56 PM- So much discussion on rust! But doesn’t the case study talk of steel? Scientific discussions incoming!

7:58 PM- “I have no answer to that”- the most dreaded statement that any mooter can make in front of a bench. Will this make them lose their resolve or will they prevail despite the visible displeasure of the bench.

8:00 PM- Time is running out! Speaker 2 has to pick up the pace and ensure they continue to hold the attention of the bench which is slowly getting impatient while presenting their final issue. The urgency in the room is felt.

8:04 PM- The Claimants are conceding to the counterclaims under pressure from the bench which is trying to confuse Speaker 1. Speaker 1 was unable to get out of the loop that the bench put them in and have been given permission to proceed to the Prayer.

8:07 PM- The submissions for the Claimants have come to a close and the stage is ready for the Respondents to take. Will they be able to establish their presence and regain the waning attention of the room?

8:10 PM- The bench is looking for simple answers to simple questions. It is up to the Speakers to understand what the moment demands instead of traversing a long winded path that circles back to where it began.

8:15 PM- The Bench is trying to get the Respondents to agree to the point of view of the Claimants which according to them is fair and just. Speaker 1 will need to demonstrate substantial skill to satisfy a bench that seems to have made up their mind.

8:18 PM- Time is almost up. Speaker 1 has been unable to answer but the impatience of the bench is visible as they ask the Speaker to quickly summarise and conclude.

8:19 PM- Speaker 2 of the Respondents takes over the room immediately. They are pumped and eager to present their arguments and the same is reflected in increased enthusiasm of the bench. The Respondents are on their way to finish with a bang!

8:25 PM- The bench is engrossed in the beautiful presentation of arguments of Speaker 2 and is now engaging into a debate on the issues involved. The enthusiasm of both the parties on the same is electrifying the entire room.

8:29 PM- Speaker 2 is demonstrating commendable grasp over jurisprudence that the bench is appreciating. At the same time, the energetic presentation of arguments is encouraging a volley of questions that the Speaker is taking care to answer. The bench seems quite impressed.

8:33 PM- A time crunch is felt and Speaker 2 proceeds to the final issue. The lack of time makes even the most proficient speakers break into sweat.

8:35 PM- “TIME’S UP”. Should one take the time to satisfy the bench or demonstrate time management and gain brownie points through that? Quite a thin line speakers must walk on.

8:41 PM- The final minute is upon us. The parties have one last opportunity to show how well they can protect the interest of their clients. Let us see who impresses the bench the most.

8:44 PM- The rebuttals and sur-rebuttal conclude without much upheaval. After an exhilarating Day 1, Court Room 2 closes its sessions for the day. We look forward to what Day 2 brings as teams will return with renewed energy and battle it out for the final crown. Thank you and Good Night!

COURTROOM-3: Clermont vs Valentina

7:23 PM-The Judges and participants have taken their seats. The Judges seem to be in a jolly mood. The Judges are taking a look at the memorial of the participants. The arguments are yet to begin.

7:25 PM- The Counsel for the claimant begins their submissions . They mention the 3 issues that they will be dealing with. But wait! The judges ask their first question without letting the counsel continue with their arguments.

7:34 PM- With only 15 minutes left for the round the counsel is yet to proceed to their second issue; with the bench being keen to explore the first issue thoroughly.

7:38 PM- Only 30 seconds left on the clock the counsel continues with his arguments referring to a case law on the place of arbitration, the judges seem satisfied.

7:39 PM- TIMES UP!!!! But the judges continue to grill the counsel.

7:44 PM- The counsels decide to invite his co-counsel to continue with their submissions. With only 10 minutes left, concluding the arguments in the given time will prove to be difficult.

7:48 PM- The counsel moves to their next issue with the permission of the bench. The judges now point to a contradiction in the arguments of the counsels and they realise the mistake and apologise for the same

7:53 PM- The co-counsel asks for the permission to put forth the prayers, but the judges decline citing paucity of time.

7:56 PM- The judges continue with the questioning. The judges seem to have teamed up and continue to grill the counsel on a single point and the counsel seems flustered.

7:59 PM- The counsel has only 30 seconds left and the judges decide to stop the questioning. The counsels rest their case . Now the respondent have started with their submissions.

8:04 PM- The judges seem confused by the submission of the counsel and ask them to clarify their position.

8:08 PM- The counsel is flustered at the question of bench and seems to be at a loss of words. Getting a chit from their co-counsel they gain their composure and continues answering the bench.

8:17 PM- The counsel hands over the podium to her co counsel and she begins with her submissions.

8:19 PM- The bench asks the first question and the counsel continues answering the same with confidence. Their answer has seemed to impress the judges as they have stopped making queries.

8: 28 PM- The counsel seems to be at a loss of words due to the bombardment of questions by the bench. The bench seems frustrated at the answers of the counsel and keeps interrupting them.

8:32 PM- TIMES UP !!! The counsel asks for 1 minute to complete her final submission but the bench only agrees to give a extension of 30 seconds. The counsel continues with her submission and completes her submission in under 30 seconds.

8:35 PM- The counsel for the claimant is back on the podium for the rebuttal. The counsel first answers the question asked earlier and then proceeds to the rebuttal.

8:37 PM- The counsel for the respondent is here for the surrebuttal.

8:38 PM- Both the sides rest their case and the judges ask the participants to exit the courtroom so they can allot the scores. The Participants exit the courtroom with perplexed faces.

COURTROOM-4: Savannah vs Nautilus

7:07 PM- Last session for the day has begun! Speaker 2 from Claimants has taken the podium. They boldly open their submissions with a well aligned structure. They are engaging well with the bench and clearly lay out their submissions.

7:11 PM- The Speaker has asked the judges to their well curated compendium. So far no questions. The Speakers storms ahead.

7:14 PM- The clear, confident and structured speech by Speaker 2 seems to be working well in their favor. The judges ask their first question with 10 minutes left on the clock.

7:16 PM- With their composed tenor, Speaker 2 calmly addresses the Judge’s question pertaining to the RETLA Clause.

7:19 PM- A question regarding the Hague Rules has come up which the Speaker seems to handle well. One judge nods in agreement with their reply. 5 MINUTES LEFT ON THE CLOCK.

7:20 PM- On a follow up question on the Hague Rules’ applicability, the Speaker defers to the Fact sheet.

7:23 PM- 30 SECONDS ON THE CLOCK. A 2 minute extension has been requested by the Speaker, judges approve. Another question follows, once again the Speaker defers to the Fact Sheet in search of the answer.

7:25 PM- A question is put forth, the Speaker attempts at the answer. The judges repeat their question, in a more expressive manner than usual.

7:26 PM- TIME IS UP! Uh oh, one more issue is to be addressed. The Speaker requests for an extension of 1 more minute. Granted. The Speaker proceeds.

7:29 PM- TIME IS UP once again. The Principle judge has 2 more questions. The judge asks the courtroom manager how long the Speaker has spoken for; seems like everyone has realised the long duration of Speaker’s 22 minute speech.

7:31 PM- Speaker 1 from the Claimants has taken the podium. They are left only with 8 minutes to present their submissions along with a minute for rebuttals. Quite a task indeed.

7:34 PM- Just as the Speaker is about to move ahead, the Judge asks a question on the fundamentals of arbitration law.

7:38 PM-TIME’S UP! The Speaker’s submission seems to have not convinced the Bench.

7:40 PM- Questioning on the point of appointment of arbitrators continues. Amidst this arises a question by the judge on the principles of justice in relation to arbitration.

7:45 PM- After a gruelling session for the Claimants, the Respondent Speaker 1 has taken stage. Within the first few statements itself arrives the first question.

7:49 PM- The Judge poses a question on the appointment of arbitrators in accordance with the LMAA Rules. In answering this, the Speaker refers to an answer that is unexpected by the judges.

7:56 PM- The Speaker from the Respondents takes a minute, coughs and gathers their thoughts. The speaker attempts at a reply, the judges unconvinced yet again. However, a greenlight to proceed with the remaining submissions is granted.

8:05 PM- The Judges smirk, and pose one last question. The speaker concludes with pleasantries and the Speaker 2 takes the stage. 8:15 PM- There is some strong questioning from the bench, the Speaker confidently tackles them without hesitation.

8:17 PM- The Speaker in a show of brilliant time management begins their prayer. Their co-counsel and researcher in a show of respect stand up at this point.

8:21 PM- The judges are very keen on getting the answer to a theoretical aspect of arbitration law. They expect a clean and clear answer. The researcher hands in a chit to their counsel for help. Thank god for researchers indeed!

8:24 PM- The judges in a merry tone tell the Counsel that in case an answer is not known they can simply state so. The Counsel states exactly that, everyone smiles and the Counsel for respondents exits. REBUTTALS Begin!

8:25 PM- Rebuttals are completed. Just before feedback is given, the judge asks one last informal question to the Claimants asking whether they have a recent case law that can rebut the Respondents. The judges are sure it's there, can the counsels find it?

8:31 PM- The last round for the day comes to a close. Some constructive feedback is given by the Judges with great advice. The day comes to a close with heaps of knowledge gained by everyone.

COURTROOM-5: Lusitania vs Argonaut

7:23 PM- We are all set to begin the fourth and final preliminary rounds for the day.

7:26 PM- The rounds have begun. And post the requisite permissions, the claimant counsel has begun with their submissions. The judge denied the offer for a summary of facts and directed the counsel to proceed with the submission.

7:30 PM- The counsel has not yet been interrupted. They continue to gracefully present their arguments with fluency and command.

7:36 PM- With 20 minutes remaining, the judges fire a quick question at the counsel, which unsurprisingly, is taken up very confidently by them. The counsel tries to answer the question by substantiating their arguments with certain aspects of their written submission, but the judges do not seem fully satisfied.

7:43 PM- With less than 15 minutes remaining, the counsel seeks to move to the next issue and presents their arguments with the help of a two-step approach. The counsel is well aware of when to give prompt replies and when to excuse themselves and refer to the written material for help.

7:48 PM- The second counsel begin with their submissions and seek to address two issues.

7:55 PM- With a couple minutes remaining, we seem to have reached an impasse in the session. This is the second question that the counsel has been unable to answer but they swiftly recovered and after prompt apologies, shifted to the next part of their submissions.

8:01 PM- The respondent counsel steps up to the podium and begins with their submission in a warm and confident manner. Again, the judges seem quite focused on listening to the oral arguments and do not have any questions as of yet.

8:08 PM- Some more heavy questions flying towards the counsel, though it seems that at this point the counsel has grown accustomed to the pressure of the questions and seems much more confident and accurate in their answers.

8:10 PM- Counsel directed to move to the next issue. The tribunal seems to have taken up a more questioning stance, and with 30 seconds remaining on the table, the counsel must make swift answers.

8:15 PM- The second counsel began with their submissions. They start with mentioning the issues that they shall be addressing in their submissions, and simultaneously build upon the preceding issue established by the first counsel.

8:19 PM- The counsel misses a question. The judges take a few seconds to explain the answer before the counsel is allowed to proceed, and is interrupted again by another judge. The repetitive questions seem to be overwhelming for the counsel since the counsel plead ignorance for the second question in a row.

8:26 PM- With 30 seconds remaining, the counsel attempts to answer a question sent their way by referring to certain points of the written submission. This seems to be a smart choice since the judges seem pleasantly satisfied.

8:28 PM- The claimants seek permission to make rebuttals and take hold of the podium. Two major rebuttals are put forth. The way the respondents reply to the rebuttals is going to play a major role in the decision of the rounds.

8:29 PM- With hopeful eyes, the respondents request for the extension of a minute, to which the judges reply with “1 sentence”. The mood of the room lightened up significantly towards the end of the round and despite the joke by the judges, the respondents were allowed to sufficiently finish their submissions.

COURTROOM-6: Mayflower vs Fulton

7:23 PM- The judges are relaxed and well seated. They talk among themselves as they wait for the teams to walk in.

7:24 PM- The teams are here. The courtroom managers provide the bench with respective teams’ memorials and announce that the rounds shall start in two minutes.

7:30 PM- The room is all geared up. The round begins!

7:36 PM- The bench directs the counsel towards the case study, while putting forth the first question of the round. The counsel confidently answers and satisfies the judges. However, the counsel fails to answer the follow-up question and proceeds with their submissions.

7:39 PM- The counsel cites a case law in response to a question posed by one of the judges. The bench urges to be directed to its citation in their written submissions. The bench seems unconvinced with the counsel’s argument.

7:44 PM- Proceeding with the next submission, the counsel refers to their transcript repeatedly. The bench asks a question regarding their factual analysis and the counsel associates pertinent rules with the facts; however, the judge still seems to be perplexed.

7:49 PM- The counsel seeks permission for an extension of additional 3 minutes for their last submission. The bench grants.

7: 51 PM- Counsel 1 concludes their arguments and invites their Co-counsel to address the remaining issues.

7:53 PM- The bench asks a question on definitions and the counsel successfully answers. Further, the counsel engages with the facts which are crucial to establish their side of the case.

7:55 PM- The bench seeks to be directed to the relevant part of the case study which has specified the authority/clause that forms the basis of claimants’ argument.

7:58 PM- The counsel gets flustered at the loop of incessant grilling. They approach the team for assistance. However, on failing to find a befitting answer, they proceed with their following submissions. The judge seems confused and asks what exact issue the counsel is presently addressing.

8:00 PM- 2 MINUTES LEFT! The placard goes unnoticed by the counsel as well as the judges.

8:04 PM- The Claimants’ conclude their arguments. The Respondents’ walk in and demand immediate attention of everyone present in the courtroom. Counsel 1 of the Respondents exudes confidence and provides a well-defined structure.

8:10 PM- The judge vocalises his dissatisfaction at one of the answers delivered by the counsel. The counsel seeks an apology and tries to answer through factual logic, due to lack of authority.

8:19 PM- The team buddy of the Respondents’ hands over a chit from the team to the counsel. The counsel does not feel the need to refer to it and proceeds to summarise their last argument.

8:21 PM- Counsel 2 of the Respondents comes forward and prudently signposts their submissions. The counsel satisfactorily answers a question hurled regarding their first argument.

8:28 PM- The counsel again takes a while to ponder over the judge’s query; and provides an adequate answer. Meanwhile, three consecutive chits are delivered to the counsel from their team.

8:35 PM- 30 SECONDS REMAINING! The counsel seeks an extension for a few seconds to answer the judge’s fresh question. They direct the judges’ attention to the case study, in order to justify applicability of the cited rules.

8:39 PM- “TIMES UP!”, holds the court room manager for the fourth time. The counsel requests for a right to appeal as the respondents felt dissatisfied with the tribunal’s assessment.

8:42 PM- The Respondents take a few seconds and come forward with sur-rebuttals. The counsel asks for an extension to answer the questions raised in the rebuttals. The judges allow and seem to be convinced as the counsel’s surrebuttals approach the end.

8:47 PM- PRELIM ROUND 4 COMES TO AN END! The judges ask the team to move out so that they can ensure confidentiality while handing over the score-sheets.

COURTROOM-7: Argus vs Titanic

7:28 PM- Ladies and gentlemen, join us as we start with the last session of Day-1 of 10th IMAM 2023. Court room 7 is all geared up and ready to engage in some significant deliberations. Let the show begin!

7: 30 PM- The claimants have taken the floor, making their position heard loud and clear. They speak with conviction, and seem to have a strong hold upon their arguments and reasonings.

7:35 PM- Upon being asked where the counsel is reading from, they rapidly give an answer. Sign of good preparation.

7:43 PM- 4 minutes later, the chain of questioning and counter-questioning on the same issue continues. The temperature in the courtroom is steadily rising!

7: 48 PM- The second counsel for the claimants has assumed the mantle. May the force be with them!

7:51 PM- The discussion has shifted towards the meaning and usage of the maxim lex arbitri. The counsel has sailed swiftly through the floodgate of questions.

8:00 PM- There, a chit arrived at the podium. However, they decide not to refer to it and plead ignorance once again. Hope it doesn't cost them major points.

8:01PM- It's now the turn of the respondents. The first counsel has started off with the third issue.

8:04 PM- “I am sorry, I am a little lost with your references” comments the Bench. The counsel must do a better job in pinpointing at the references.

8: 05 PM- The bench is comparatively silent in this session. They are focusing on jotting down their remarks on paper. The counsel is quickly covering all the substantial points around the issue of the bill of lading.

8:09 PM- The Bench seems to be stuck at one particular landmark judgement, and is shooting numerous questions on its applicability to the case at hand.

8:12 PM- The second counsel has kickstarted their submissions on the remaining issues at hand.

8:16 PM- There is a lot of fumbling on the part of the counsel at the beginning. They quickly get back on track and make their submissions on the issue of number of arbitrators.

8:20 PM- The Bench has thrown a googly at the counsel, which the counsel has handled smartly. Crisis averted, it seems.

8:26 PM- The Bench has posed quite a lengthy and detailed question, mentioning certain principles of law surrounding summary proceedings. The counsel seems to be a bit puzzled.

8:30 PM- The rebuttal rounds have commenced. The claimant has come prepared with a befitting answer to the respondent’s contentions. They end by putting a question for the respondents to answer.

8:33 PM- While the sur-rebuttals are going on, the claimants abruptly start speaking. The Bench stops them instantly.

8: 35 PM- We have come to an end to this engaging round of arguments. Feedback session has begun. Thank you for your patient reading!

COURTROOM-8: Scharnhorst vs Beagle

7:10 PM- We are back for the last round for today. The participants have walked in and have taken their respective seats.

7:12 PM- The Claimants begin their submissions. The judges start their questioning, earlier this time.

7:15 PM- The Bench asks if the claimants would go through an “irreparable loss”. The Counsel agrees. The Bench asks why the Claimants demand summary disposal. After a few unsuccessful attempts, the Counsel finally gives a convincing answer.

7:20 PM- The Speaker seems perplexed by the questions being raised by the Bench. However, the Counsel answers without a flinch.

7:21 PM- There seems to be a conflict between the understanding of the Bench and the Claimants. The judge rectifies the error committed by the Speaker. But the speaker seems convinced that they are right.

7:24 PM- The Bench differentiates between two significant terms and explains how the Claimants have wrongly understood the problem.

7:25 PM- The Claimants disagree. The Bench discusses pecuniary jurisdiction and explains its meaning. The Speaker tries to buttress their point with a case. However, the Bench explains how the cases are different. The Speaker fumbles and seeks permission to bring their compendium of cases.

7:28 PM- The Counsel ends his submission. The second speaker takes the podium. He sounds confident and readily accepts the questions.

7:31 PM- Questions from the Bench have resulted in the Speaker losing their composure. The confusion was apparent. The researcher seems disappointed with his hands covering his face. They desperately look at the Bench in order to judge whether they are buying the answers made.

7:40 PM- The Counsel confidently uses case laws to enforce his points. However, he fumbles on being asked tedious questions. He is making the final submission related to the CISF contract.

7:47 PM- The Responding speaker begins their submissions. The judges delve into definitions that are important for the subject matter. The Speaker fails to give a convincing definition. This error might push the team in the wrong direction. Or will they be able to recover ?

7:51 PM- The Bench disagreed with the Speaker’s understanding of what held persuasive value. The judge handed a document to the Speaker to read out a specific section. The judges do not understand the approach being taken by the Respondents. The Claimants listen with rapt attention as their opponents make slip ups.

7:58 PM- The Co-counsel has now taken the podium. The Speaker takes a simplistic approach and begins with the definitions of important teams. They do so while also referring to relevant case laws.

8:05 PM- The Bench has fallen silent. Is it because the submissions are uninteresting or is it because they are curious to explore more details about the same ?

8:11 PM- The Counsel seeked permission to present their prayers. However, the Bench denied. The Claimants took the podium for the rebuttals. While it did not severely change the circumstances, they utilised whatever little time they had. Both Speakers from the Respondents side took the podium to ask their respective questions.

8:15 PM- In a light banter, the Bench asked the Claimants if they wished to ask subsequent rebuttals. The Claimants’ eyes glimmered with hope as they asked , “Can we do it?”. The Bench smiled and denied. The room was rejuvenated by a unanimous laugh from the participants and the Bench.

DAY 1 | 24TH MARCH 2023

PRELIMINARY ROUNDS - SESSION 4 CONCLUDES!

We have come to the end of an engaging second session. Stay tuned the SCC Online Blog for constant updates!

NLUO International Maritime Arbitration Moot(IMAM) (@NLUO_IMAM) March 24, 2023