top of page
  • Writer's pictureLive updates - 10th NLUO IMAM 2023

LIVE Blog, Day-3,| 10th NLUO – Bose & Mitra & Co. International Maritime Arbitration Moot 2023

Updated: Jan 17

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 (, via its online platform 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 3 | 26TH MARCH 2023



10:30 AM- Welcome to the Semi-Final Rounds as the top four teams will go head on against each other to secure their place in the Finals! These are the best of the best and they will face the masters who are not going to make it easy. Let the battle begin!

10:35 AM- The formalities are completed and the teams await the final nod from the bench. The bench seems eager to get it right as they clarify certain rules and can be seen engaged in hurried discussions. The teams wait with bated breath.

10:38 AM- The arguments have commenced on the procedural issues first. “Convince us of the jurisdiction first”, the bench states. Counsel for the Claimants seems nervous as they ask for the question to be repeated.

10:43 AM- Issues of privity of contract have taken over the Courtroom as the Counsel for the Claimants is unable to coherently answer the incessant questions of the bench. The bench seems to have a counter to everything the Counsel says.

10:46 AM- “You cannot come to this tribunal with two arbitration clauses”, the bench states. Will the Counsel concede their mistake in the memorial or stick to what they are arguing before the bench?

10:51 AM- The discourse has now proceeded to the number of arbitrators. The Counsel for the Claimants is trying to convince the bench on the point of composition of the arbitral tribunal.

10:54 AM- Interpretation of statutes is a tricky arena. The bench is not satisfied that easily if you do not have case laws to substantiate your arguments!

10:57 AM- Counsel for the Claimants is finally getting some approval from the very unyielding bench. Time is running out as they ask for an extension to finish up their issues.

11:02 AM- Transshipment is the issue in contention now. The Counsel for the Claimants have been given additional time to properly argue the same but there is a question after every word they utter!

11:06 AM- The bench has become very energetic and is gesticulating heavily to get their point across. The Counsel for the Claimant has their work cut out for them to not succumb to the intense pressure. The room is heating up and it is heating up fast!

11:11 AM- The stream of notes from a very frazzled Researcher of the Claimants is never-ending. The Co-Counsel has taken the podium and is trying to showcase that they are aware of the technicalities that involve policies and certificates.

11:17 AM- “Have you come across any statute wherein you are obliged to attach your policy with a certificate?”, the bench asks while grilling the Co-Counsel of the Claimants. The Counsel for the Claimants while sitting in their place is increasingly becoming more red-faced, a true testament to the nature of proceedings going on.

11: 24 AM- The bench is trying to confuse the Claimants by asking questions on the RETLA clause. Will they be trapped in this loop or will they be able to manoeuvre their way out of this?

11:34 AM- It is time for the Respondents to present their arguments. Counsel for the Respondents start off with the jurisdiction issues with a smile on their face. A commendable feat given they have just been witness to the intense questioning that their opposing side just faced.

11:39 AM- Laws governing the contract and laws governing the arbitration. A very thin line of difference or the same thing? The Counsel seems to be keeping a cool head up till now and answering what the bench wants to hear.

11: 44 AM- The bench is not buying it. The Counsel is presenting their points with conviction but the bench is seen to be visibly disagreeing and shaking their heads.

11:48 AM- “Are you conceding to what we are saying?”, the bench asks as they continue questioning the Respondents on the composition of the arbitration panel. The arguments seem to be going in circles and it is very easy to lose your calm in such a situation.

11:52 AM- Cases are irrelevant if their facts do not match the case at hand. But making bold assertions without any case law is not being received well with the bench. The Respondents have found themselves in very dangerous waters!

12:01 PM- The bench has flatly stated the Respondents have no case. Will this break the confidence of the Counsel as they are finally allowed to commence arguments on merits?

12:07 PM- Counsel for the Respondent seems to be losing confidence due to the barrage of questions that they are being subjected to. But at this stage in the competition, you cannot go down without putting up a fight. They are trying to satisfy the bench in all ways possible.

12:09 PM- “Sue the carrier!” the bench states categorically, unwilling to bend despite the plethora of arguments that the Counsel for the Respondents is presenting.

12:14 PM- Can the Co-Counsel take up where the Counsel left off and satisfy the bench? Despite the fiery round of questions already fired, the bench is not tired and has already started grilling the Co-Counsel on the differences between policies and certificates.

12:20 PM- "What is in a name?” -Shakespeare has found relevance in maritime law.

12:24 PM- The anticipation is building by the second as the rounds near their close. Questions continue unabated as the Co-Counsel is taken from document to document by the bench. You can quote one section but the veterans can quote ten more!

12:28 PM- The facts may be silent but can you say more? Skills of advocacy are put to test when you are arguing on the unknown.

12:34 PM- The Researcher may pass on hundreds of notes. But at that point, do you make eye-contact with the arbitrator or do you shuffle through them to get the answer. Looks like when at the podium, you indeed are on your own.

12:38 PM- The bench seems to have stumped the Counsel. Time is up and the Co-Counsel of the Respondents is grasping at straws on borrowed time. The tension in the room can be cut by a knife as the bench clarifies something among themselves.

12:43 PM- “Let’s keep the rebuttal short and point wise- make it crispy!”, the bench states smirking. The final chance to make an impression and influence the scores is upon the parties.

12:48 PM- Even the rebuttals have not been spared. The bench wants clarity in everything the Counsels say!

12:51 PM- We finally come to the end of the first Semi- Final rounds. The arbitrators will now engage in discussions and will then decide the fate of the participants. Let the scoring begin!




1:24 PM- We now commence with the second Semi-Final Round. Looks like the judges are now geared to put the participants to a test. The arguments on the jurisdictional issues have been started by the Counsel for the Claimants.

1:29 PM- “If there is an inconsistency between the procedural law and substantive law, which shall prevail.”, asked the Bench.

1:32 PM- The mindful Arbitrators make sure they go through every relevant document as the Counsel presents the same. The Bench has left no stone unturned with respect to testing the skills of our participants.

1:34 PM- The Bench asked multiple questions concerning the differences between LMA rules and LMA terms. “Where is it written ?” was the counter question by the bench to the answer given by the Counsel. The bombardment of questions puts the Claimant on a slippery slope.

1:43 PM- As the Counsel transitions to the second argument concerning summary disposal, the arbitrators have a brief discussion within themselves. The Counsel notices the same and continues to make his submissions. With beads of perspiration appearing on their foreheads, the Respondents sit with their arms crossed with a frown on their face. The adrenaline rush can be felt in the entire room.

1:48 PM- The Bench asks why the Claimants insist for the oral hearing. The Counsel attempts to answer their question. The Arbitrators point out fallacies in the argument and ask the Counsel to proceed further.

1:51 PM- Disheartened, the Counsel proceeded further. This time the argument lands well. The Counsel’s answer to a particular question impressed the Arbitrators. They remarked that it would be perfect if he can provide any authority to prove the same.

1:55 PM- The Counsel discusses the underlying principle behind arbitrations. They outline the significance of party autonomy. Right then the Bench interrupts the speaker and asks how party autonomy can exist when parties are not in consensus in the first place with respect to the type of proceeding.

2:02 PM- The Co-counsel took the podium. The Counsel for the claimant sits down and takes a breath as he has survived the barrage of questions. He is not unscathed but he is alive! Will the Co-counsel suffer the same consequence ?

2:06 PM- The Bench begins a dicey line of questioning. The incorporation of certain specific terms in the contract is a prerequisite for the arguments being made by the Co-counsel. Can the Co-counsel direct the Bench to the relevant documents or will they be victim to the knowledge of the Arbitrators?

2:12 PM- The Counsel has not been able to quench the Bench’s curiosity. Is the argument failing or are the Arbitrations just putting it to a test.

2:16 PM- The Bench differentiates between stamp duty and endorsements after the Co-counsel provides them with an authority to prove their point.

2:20 PM- The Bench questions the Counsel on Open Insurance policies. The Co-counsel confidently responds with the answers. He seems at ease but is he? He gestures at his Counsel. The Counsel extends his document. The Co-counsel refuses and rather, asks for the bottle of water. The participants have now reached a stage where water is a commodity more luxurious than anything else in the room.

2:25 PM- The Bench begins a line of questioning on the significance of insurance certificates. The Co-Counsel does not look at his sheets. He seems well prepared. The Bench seems satisfied for the time being. But none will be spared. The questions feel like torpedoes to ones on the receiving end.

2:31 PM- The Co-counsel mentions INCO terms. The arbitrators share a laugh amongst each other and advise him to not return to square one. They ask him to summarise the rest of his arguments in three minutes. The Co-counsel has only 180 seconds to do justice to the innumerable hours spent on their final issue.

2:35 PM- The room is engulfed by a heated discussion. The Co-counsel dropped his sheets of paper. While on their way to pick it up, he continues to answer the question. There is no time to breathe.

2:37 PM- TIME’S UP! But neither the Bench nor the Co-counsel grace the placard with a glance. Tempus Fugit ! Time flies like melting ice in this room.

2:39 PM- The Co-Counsel finally acknowledges the fact that he has elapsed the time. He asks for an extension to answer a question. The bench allows it. The Co-counsel asks for yet another extension. The Bench flatly denies. The Co-counsel asks if he would be allowed to make his prayers. The Bench refuses and the Co-counsels strikes a deal with his own fate and takes his seat.

2:44 PM- The Respondents have started making their submissions. At this point, they should be able to gauge the questions and the pattern of the Bench. But is it enough to prepare one for the wrath of our Arbitrators?

2:53 PM- The Bench engages in a conversation as the Counsel waits for them to reach a conclusion. The Claimants, a few feet away, engage in a heated discussion. They seem to be preparing for the rebuttals already. Dwelling on lost time is futile. It is indeed better to utilise what we have before us. The Claimants seem to have embodied this very quote.

2:58 PM- “There is no such thing as LMA Rules”, exclaims the Counsel. Their contention with the arguments made by the Claimant has been taken into consideration by the Bench. The sound of whispers echoes through the room as the room falls silent and the Arbitrators engage in a discussion.

3:04 PM- “How is it a dispute of fact ?” The question seems to have dumbed the Counsel. The Counsel quickly snaps out of his daze. He clarifies what he exactly meant. The Bench elaborates their question and mentions a fact. The brave Counsel says he wishes to contend what was mentioned by the Bench. The spirit of the Counsels in IMAM and the ferocious competition one faces here is reflected by that very statement.

3:11 PM- The Counsel move to the final limb of their submissions. The Bench mentions how the Respondents are the ones delaying the procedures while contending that the Claimants are the ones guilty of the same act.

3:14 PM- The Co-counsel begins with their submissions. The Bench asked, “What do you mean by the implied terms?”. This happens to be one of the very few direct questions that have been asked in this round. The Bench has fabricated what seems to be an illusion of comfort. A few more seconds and the Arbitrators shall begin their line of questioning.

3:20 PM- The Bench demands a copy of a particular document. The Co-counsel does not have the same. The Claimants, for a second time, offer to provide the prerequisite documents. The Claimants exchange smiles with their teammates as they bask in the pride of having all relevant documents and less deskspace.

3:32 PM- The Co-counsel just began the second limb of their argument. The Bench interrupted them and mentioned how they should move to the next point. For a brief moment, the Co-counsel’s face is consumed by grief but they quickly recover. The Respondents swiftly transition to the next point concerning the Bill of Lading as per the demands made by the Arbitrators.

3:35 PM- The Bench clashes with the Co-counsel. How does one win this lopsided battle? The Arbitrators leave behind traces of the right answer. However, can the Respondents play the tiptoeing detective and unravel the mystery?

3:46 PM- The round is nearing its end. The Respondent researcher occasionally pastes a note on the Co-counselor’s podium. As the rebuttals begin, the Claimants take the podium but the Bench interrupts them as soon as they begin with their rebuttal.

3:54 PM- The Respondents begin with their surrebuttals. With a question about procedural rules and guidelines, they have compelled the Arbitrators to engage in a discussion within themselves.

3:57 PM- The rounds have come to an end. The Arbitrators remark that the participants had performed really well. With documents and notes sprawled across the tables, both teams tried their best to dismantle each other’s case. It seems as if the participants met a worthy match.


DAY 3 | 26TH MARCH 2023



5:09 PM- Welcome to the Final Rounds of the 10th NLUO Bose & Mitra & Co. International Maritime Arbitration Moot! The top two teams of the competition will now battle it out for a chance to lift the trophy and be declared Winners of the competition. The teams have taken their place and the anticipation in the room has increased while we await the final nod from the judges. Let the clash of the titans begin!

5:13 PM- And it looks like the start is a tad rocky! The Counsel for the Claimants have begun their submission as they choose to familiarise the bench with a brief summary of facts. The Counsel seems a bit nervous and rightly so, the atmosphere of the Courtroom is quite intimidating.

5:17 PM- It’s a rapid line of questioning for claimants! “Show us the arbitration clause” the bench asks as the Counsel for the Claimants start their arguments, advocating for three arbitrators under the LMAA Rules.

5:21 PM- The Arbitrator Mr. Tettenborn throws in a rather pertinent question and it looks the Counsel still hasn’t managed to gain their calm and composure. Why should the LMAA Rules prevail over Section 15 of the English Arbitration Act, especially when the two exist simultaneously? “The agreement between the parties is paramount”, is the crux of the argument of the Counsel of the Claimants.

5:24 PM- And the Counsel took a risky gamble ! “When the facts are silent, certain things can be assumed safely” Does the bench feel the same?

5:27 PM- We now proceed to the second procedural issue i.e., whether the proceeding needs to be disposed summarily. Immediately, Mr. Narichania asks, “What is your understanding of the term ‘summarily’?” Seems like the Counsel for the Claimants manages to satisfy the bench with a very crisp answer.

5:29 PM- The bench has caught the Counsel in a contradiction in their statements. After a small confusion, the Counsel hastily apologises and proceeds as the arbitrators smile.

5:31 PM- You cannot hoodwink the bench! How can Civil Procedure Rules apply to an arbitration proceedings the bench asks. The discourse has entered the murky waters of procedural law and the Counsel for the Claimants has found themselves in a loop!

5:34 PM- A true testament of good advocacy skills is when you are not scared of what the bench throws at you. The Counsel’s voice seems to have become shaky at the incessant barrage of questions. Will they be able to preserve till the end?

5:38 PM- The bench is not buying it! Eyebrows are being raised at every sentence that the Counsel utters, who looks visibly nervous at their inability to satisfy the bench. The bench has stumped the Counsel who has fallen silent.

5:41 PM- “Do you have a compendium of the cases you are referring to?” the bench asks. Stumbling through the submissions with cases that they are unable to substantiate on, looks like the finals aren’t going to be easy for the claimants ! When the Claimants answer in the negative the The Bench is visibly peeved.

5:43 PM- Limit the entire final rounds to two hours only? Alas! It might just take the Claimants more than two hours to convince the bench of their stance today.

5:45 PM- The discussion has now commenced on transshipment clauses. A nervous researcher with an unending trail of notes makes feeble attempts to save the even more nervous, fumbling counsel for claimants making the submissions. Whether they will have an opportunity to look at them is another matter altogether.

5:47 PM- The question is long but the Counsel has no answer, they ask to get back on the same later. They have asked permission to proceed but the confidence of the Counsel seems to be waning by the second.

5:51 PM- “There is no single carrier who is continuously liable is the main contention of the buyer”, states the bench putting a stop to the Counsel’s feeble attempt at getting their submissions up and running! The Counsel can argue as much as they want on the extent of insurance cover but that is not what the bench wants to hear.

5:53 PM- “Our Patience is now running thin, convince us in a minute” retorts the Bench. Phew! That was harsh. The Counsel of the Claimants has one last chance to satisfy the bench before passing on the baton to their Co-Counsel.

5:57 PM- Catching and holding the attention of the arbitrators on what you want to submit seems quite difficult with this bench! The arbitrators seem to have questions ready on every single issue, the Co-Counsel has barely started and is immediately met with a rapid line of questioning.

5:59 PM- The bench has raised a case of their own so as to understand the Claimants view on the same. It is not enough that you are aware of the cases you have cited! Counsels must be aware of almost all landmark judgements concerning their case through and through.

6:02 PM- These might be the strongest teams but when the stakes are this high, even the most experienced mooters can break. The Claimant tries to bluff their way through this battle with an American case law as an English case law to substantiate their arguments but the experienced bench is prompt to call their bluff.

6:05 PM- “Be conscious of your issues”, the bench warns. Fancy arguments can take you far but when you are presenting your case in front of veterans, merely painting a pretty picture, with no substantive law to back your submissions does not work.

6:08 PM- The bench has borrowed the book that the Counsel for the Claimants were referring to. The memory of the Counsel will now be tested. Mooting really does test it all!

6:09 PM- “Certificate is essentially the policy-”, the Counsel states and then stops abruptly. Mr. Tettenborn had made some movement making the Counsel anticipate a question. With a bench as inquisitorial as the one ruling in this court, you are forced to stay on your toes at all times!

6:14 PM- Every single statement uttered in this court needs to be sufficiently substantiated. It’s back to the basics for the Counsel, as the bench categorically denies the applicability of the Hague-Visby Rules.

6:18 PM- The curse of the rust continues! Rust can make buildings crumble- looks like it can also make the arguments of the Claimants in this case disintegrate into pieces.

6:20 PM- The Co-Counsel for the Claimants have been given the mobile phone of an Arbitrator to read out a provision of law. The bench is determined to leave no stone unturned and the Counsel’s ability to think on their feet is being tested.

6:25 PM- “How do you reconcile the exclusion clause”, the bench asks. The Counsel looks relieved as they are able to quickly answer the question but there is no respite! The next question is just round the corner.

6:27 PM- Time indeed is a traitor ! The clock runs out and when met with a request for an extension, the bench proclaims with a dramatic flair, “One extension and one only”. The Co-Counsel begins to rush and stumble towards the concluding submissions cramming every piece of relevant information in their hurried statements.

6:34 PM- It is now time for the Respondents to take the stage. A blessing in way of a short break has been given to them as an Arbitrator steps outside of the Courtroom. Rapid but hushed murmurs can be heard from the Respondent bench as the Claimants sit and gather their thoughts after an exceptionally difficult round.

6:38 PM- The proceeding commence, the respondents take the stand, and barely a second after they start, they are met with their first question “If it's an oral contract, how can the English Arbitration Act 1996 apply”, asks the bench as the Counsel for the Respondent takes up their submission on the number of arbitrators for one last time.

6:42 PM- Looks like this isn’t going to be an easy battle for the Respondents either ! “You can’t pick what is in your favour and discard what is not.” Ambiguities give leeway for liberal interpretation but that goes out of the window when the bench completely denies the existence of any ambiguity.

6:45 PM- The arbitrators can be seen smirking as they pose one question after another to the Counsel. They are attempting to throw off the counsel from their arguments but it seems that the Counsel is standing strong on their points and widely smiling back. The temperament in the room seems to be lightening, a commendable feat by the Respondents!

6:50 PM- Just as the Counsel was getting into a steady pace, they were immediately interrupted by the bench. Seems like they have said something quite controversial. Will they be able to stand strong and substantiate their stance ?

6:53 PM- Will the bench use a judgement cited by the Respondents against them? The Counsel has found themselves in dangerous waters, as they realise that merely stating tricky legal doctrines might not deviate the bench from the moot point!

6:56 PM- And a rare sight for the Courtroom today! The bench seems to have no counter to the argument of the Respondents. The Counsel, sensing the opportunity, takes the win and jumps on to the next issue before the bench is tempted to grill them more.

6:59 PM- Cleanliness is a peculiar term to describe a document. But for maritime law and more specifically bills of lading, it is an industry standard. The Counsel for the Respondents is trying their level best to satisfy the bench on the fact that they were justified in rejecting particular documents.

7:05 PM- “Is your client being too demanding?”, an arbitrator jests as the Counsel tries to convince the bench that the steel coils should not have any superficial rust while arguing on the validity of the RETLA clause.

7:08 PM- Time has run out but the questions from the bench are unrelenting. Time management at the cost of not satisfying the bench. A thin line to walk on! But do you really have a choice when at the last moment the bench simply states that your entire logic is “incorrect”!

7:12 PM- The Co-Counsel for the Respondents makes a strong start and puts forth their arguments on the requirement of an insurance policy instead of the insurance certificate by citing the Diamond Alkali case.

7:13 PM- The Respondents contend that certificates are ambiguous as opposed to policies. But the bench categorically states that the certificate in question is “crystal clear”. And with that the first submission of the respondents falls and crumbles like a deck of cards ! Can they even make a comeback from this ? The entire Courtroom awaits this comeback with bated breaths.

7:17 PM- The Co-Counsel for the Respondent seems to have hit the right spot. The bench is seen to nod vigorously before making a small written note. But with one satisfied arbitrator you have four unsatisfied ones!

7:22 PM- The bench is trying to baffle the Co-Counsel for the Respondent by using their own statements against them. But it seems that the respondents have made their comeback and will not be rattled that easily.

7:27 PM- Precedents are of paramount importance. Without them your case will shatter. But having cases with similar facts scenarios is also important. Any point of difference and the bench is very quick to point that out.

7:31 PM- “The bench is very satisfied on the correctness of Hanson case- the main point is whether it applies here” the bench states ushering the Counsel for the Respondent to get to their main argument given the paucity of time.

7:37 PM- Co-Counsel is taking more time to answer the questions now and surprisingly seems to have stated something that goes completely and directly against them! An environment as brutal as this can rattle even the very best.

7:41 PM- Pieces of paper fly away from the podium as the Co-Counsel for the Respondent desperately rifle through the bunch of papers with them to find the answer. The respondents have thrown up a hail mary. Shaking hands, bated breath, but with a steady voice the Counsel seems to be hanging on. Does the bench notice everything?

7:44 PM- “You did make a good point”, and Lo and Behold !, for the first time today the bench seems to have concurred with the counsels. With a visible sigh, the counsel gasps at the ray of hope, holds their ground, and finally manages to trip, stumble and manoeuvre their way to the concluding submissions. You guessed it right ! The court awaits rebuttals and sur-rebuttals now!

7:50 PM- “Sometimes you need to let go of certain arguments to win”, the bench states. Wise words for the Counsels to take note of. The rebuttals continue with small pointers from the bench but the time is up. Now it is time for the Respondents to provide a counter to the rebuttals put forth by the Claimants, and the bench accords them extra time because of their good time management in their main submissions.

7:55 PM- The sur-rebuttals of the Respondents are being received well by the bench as they nod along without much intervention. As the Respondents rest their case, we have come to the end of the engrossing finals!

7:57 PM- The competition has come to an end and the scoring now begins. The teams wait with bated breath as discussions ensue among the judges. The final question remains- who will take the trophy home?


69 views0 comments


bottom of page