The commencement of SVKM’s NMIMS Kirit P. Mehta 2nd National Moot Court Competition proceeded on a promising note with the teams armed with their pristine arguments. This was followed by the arrival of the judges who were set to sharply evaluate each and every point that the participants made.
Each side, that is the petitioner and the respondent will get 15 minutes for presentation which will include rounds of their arguments, cross-questioning by the judges and lastly rebuttals.
The Mooting rounds in all the courtrooms began on a calm note. As the industrious mooters aptly raised their arguments the following was the scenario in our courtrooms.
REPORTING FROM COURTROOMS – PRELIMINARY ROUNDS
The Counsels on the Petitioner’s side in all the courts started advancing the arguments assertively. The Petitioners generally tried to maintain a smooth flow despite the frequent interruptions. While most speakers replied deftly to the questions put forth by the judges, some were not able to confidently counter the judges’ interrogations. Considering the arguments advanced by Counsels, the judges often conveyed that they looked forward to solutions that lie outside the ambit of IBC (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code). Further, the petitioner’s side wrapped up their argument with their prayer.
Most respondents positively started their arguments by reiterating the facts while some relied on case laws to back their initial arguments. The judges questioned the counsels regarding the contention raised by the Petitioner. In some courtrooms, the judges, keen to arrive at the prime contention prompted the speakers to directly address the key concerns.
The counsels managed to keep the rebuttal rounds short and crisp delivering the best to their opposing counsels.
Post the round the judges delivered constructive feedback, where they pointed out the areas where the speakers could improve their research and presentation. For instance, in Court Room no. 5 the judges advised the students to focus on legal points and avoid making arguments based on emotional grounds. Moreover, the judges stressed on the clarity of thought. Further, in Court Room no. 6 the judges pointed out that the citation given in the memorial lacked authenticity and favored the use of AIR or SSC citations. Considering the complexity of the proposition, in another courtroom, the judges expressed their appreciation for the students. At the end of the round, the judges encouraged the students and wished them luck for their future endeavors.
Initially, the overall sight of the courtrooms was calm, and the disposition of the participants throughout was confident despite the occasional questions asked by the judges. The later rounds were relatively intense in terms of the cross-questioning by the judges.
REPORTING FROM COURTROOMS – QUARTER FINAL ROUNDS
The general ambiance of the courtroom in the quarterfinal rounds was quite tensed and challenging for the participants.
This court experienced an atmosphere like that of the previous round. The competition witnessed a fair amount of healthy judge- participant interaction that was followed by cross-examination by the judges, needless to say, the counsels crafty answered all the questions.
After a long and grueling first day of Preliminary Rounds, the last round of the day is finally over.
We thank the participants for their patience and wish them well for tomorrow’s rounds.