UPDATED RESULTS: 3rd Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015 [Oct 31 – Nov 2, Jaipur]

Results

Winner: BVU, New Law College Pune

Ist Runner up: Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law Delhi

IInd Runner up: School of Law, DAVV, Indore

Best Memorial: School of Law, DAVV, Indore

Best MooterMale – Pankaj Tayagi (IIT Kharagpur), Female – Suchita Mehrotra (Faculty of Law, Allahabad)

For Detailed Results, click HERE.

About

Amity Law School, Amity University Rajasthan is pleased to announce the 3rd edition of annual flagship event, IIIrd Amity National Moot Court Competition, 2015 that is scheduled to be held from October 31st to November 02nd, 2015.

The plot of moot proposition is a crime mystery, based on the established principles of criminal law which will provide the budding lawyers with a panorama of unconventional and extraordinary legal issues to delve upon.

This would be riveting experience for the participants to interpret and analyze the intricacies of Criminal Law.

Awards

Cash prize, awards and certificate of merit shall be provided for the following categories:

1. Best Team Cash prize – Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand Only.)

2. 1st Runner-up Team  Cash prize – Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand Only.)

3. 2nd Runner- up Team Cash prize – Rs.5000/- (Five Thousand Only.)

4. Best Speaker Cash prize – Rs.5000/- (Five Thousand Only.)

5. Best Memorial Cash prize – Rs.5000/-  Five Thousand Only.)

Registration

To register for the Moot Court Competition, kindly confirm your participation via email to the Organizing Committee at [email protected] latest by September 25th, 2015.

The hard copy of Registration form and the payment of fee of Rs.3000 via DD should be completed by September 30th, 2015.

Also, fill the registration form and send it along with a demand draft in favour of ‘Amity University Rajasthan’ payable at “Jaipur”latest by September 30, 2015 to Amity Law School, JAIPUR, ‘III Amity National Moot Court Competition 2015’.

Further developments and relevant information pertaining to the Moot Court Competition shall be send to you via e-mail.

Important Dates

1.   25TH SEPTEMBER 2015: LAST DATE FOR PROVISIONAL REGISTRATION.

2.   30TH SEPTEMBER 2015: LAST DATE OF ACTUAL REGISTRATION AND PAYMENT OF FEE.

3.   25TH OCTOBER 2015: LAST DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF MEMORIAL (SOFT COPIES)

4.   30TH OCTOBER 2015: SUBMISSION OF MEMORIAL (HARD COPIES), DRAW OF LOTS AND EXCHANGE OF MEMORIAL.

5.   31ST OCTOBER 2015 : COMMENCEMENT OF COMPETITION

Contact

Akshay Viyogi: +91 9001845699

Anu Singhai: +91 8094047437

Sameer Bakshi mob: 9829501729

Downloads

The Invitation can be downloaded HERE.

The Rules and Regulations can be accessed HERE.

The Moot Court Proposition can be accessed HERE.

The Travel Form is available HERE.

The Registration form is HERE.

Read More

Comment Using Facebook

Comments Till Now

  1. one of the finalist says:

    this moot seriously sucks.
    first, very poor management.
    second, copied moot problem without any changes.
    third, judges were not briefed before about the moot problem, (the problem was also one sided).
    fourth, partiality happens. yes! (they do not revel the shore sheets too)

    • You are not one of the finalist says:

      Everyone can tell that you are not a finalist reasons are:
      1. not everything was kept same in the moot proposition , the date of incident was changed which made criminal law amendment 2013 applicable which in consequence changed the problem form the legal point of view. What are those legal consequences I do not think that they are required to be written because I Presume no one is a kid.
      2. Score sheet is right here in this page it was also there on the date of competition one had to check notice board for that
      3. Judges were briefed, I was not even in top 8 but In our prelims round judges were excellent knew almost all the important case laws
      4. If you really were a finalist you would have posted with your name
      5. I think you are the one who has been posting in 9th Amity Moot and has received strong reply and hence in consequence this post

      • One of the finalist says:

        In response to your reply,
        I can only agree to the point that the judges were good in prelims but thats it.

        Secondly, what gain I will get to demean amity. it was just honest feedback, which they need to look after if they plan to organise next moot. And cautionary to students who might be interested.

        • You still are not one of the finalist. says:

          well!
          I could not help myself but to smile. Such a trap you have laid. You want me (you will reply that you do not want, you are least interested, but they are false) to counter your point no.1 about judges being good by stating that you are making excuses for your final defeat,then I implicitly accept that you are one of the finalist which you are not!
          About your second point, wow! I mean wow! what an emotional and strong statement, it can even bring life into mars! (sorry too many exclamatory marks) . I would have agreed generally with you had I been a part of Amity.

  2. Truth shall be told, I must say that, They have made a very good table i.e. DOL (DRAW)
    by which no team would face team again in the next round & even the judges, they wont be judging the same team. Table was perfectly made but……..
    One of teacher told us that “The chit which you are picking up is your new code”
    This is the point from where the amusing scenes took place.

    Secondly, Our result sheet was down there beneath the table of judges, which was handed over to us mistakenly by the stupid court officer, still WE ARE AMAZED, THAT EVALUATION COMMITTEE HAS GIVEN US THE MARKS.
    SO WE OWE THEM A SINCERE THANKS 😛
    HOW IS IT POSSIBLE?
    THEY DO NOT HAVE OUR EVALUATION SHEET, STILL THEY HAVE GIVEN US THE MARKS.
    WHAT IS THIS?
    A GRAND TRIBUTE TO EXAMINATION (EVALUATION) COMMITTEE

    • Lier Hunter says:

      Presuming your allegation to be true three things follow
      1. if score sheet was lost the committee would have called the judges to award the marks again
      2. As soon as you saw your evaluation sheet you should have rushed to the committee which any one would have done and something like this in the profession of law must be done as expeditiously as possible (law of limitation etc.)
      3. Your conduct reflects that you still have to earn what it takes in this profession
      and I am Amazed too that its not that competitive out there, there are careless and frustrated people we have to compete with.
      A MEGA TRIBUTE TO MY FRUSTRATED MAY BE COMPETITORS

      • You went too far by taking law of limitation into account
        A slow clap for u ..

        Why should we run to the committee, when they do have the experts, who could evaluate the performance without the sheet :p

        You might have scored well, which we didn’t get as per the original evaluation sheet, but that doesn’t mean, they have a right to presume our marks, which are totally different.

        You are not getting, what I am saying
        Suppose, even they have asked the judges again, how could it be possible to have different result.

        Yes u r a hunter, but you have got to learn a lot

        • Learned Lier Hunter Returns says:

          Again presuming your allegation to be and I am writing from the point of view of a reasonable man
          my learned friend are you absolutely sure who deserves that slow cap hunter or amazed
          A. LIMITATION that was on lighter mood
          any way that is also not irrelevant by limitation I meant you should have quickly rushed to the committee that would have benefited your team only I will tell why (with very slow cap dedicated to amazed)
          A. My friend you were in a competition not in an event to scrutinize work of your imaginary experts it looks like by coincident for you (unfortunate for me if I were at your position) evaluation sheet was there now you would like to see your experts at motion
          B. if your conduct was like an active and sensible ( in that situation) person you wouldn’t have clapping for me ( slow claps)
          because if hunter was there he would have called court officers, opponent team, evaluation committee that way things would have been definitely worked out.
          C. My friend you were waiting so that you can write up here but honestly just for a second only think what you have done by not contacting committee in my opinion it was not an apt thing in that situation
          D. there is no premise for your action/ argument about experts its like you already knew about expert and that is why it didn’t bother you to approach committee because you wanted to see your imaginary expert at action. Just do a little introspection this time I will not get personal about your conduct because I am serious this time
          E. Logically there is nothing wrong in getting to know your marks immediately but you should have been active and sensible at that time

          • Lier Hunter Concludes says:

            PS:
            F. IN REFERENCE TO ASKING THE JUDGES TO AWARD MARKS AGAIN – AMAZED IS SAYING THE RESULT CAN NOT BE DIFFERENT AGAIN HUNTER SAYS THAT OUTCOME OF ROUNDS DEPENDS UPON THE MARKS AWARDED BY JUDGES AND MEMORIAL MARKS AND THE EVALUATION SHEET BY JUDGES I DO NOT THINK CONTAINED MEMORIAL MARKS
            G. Even if you had carried your evaluation sheet to the committee accompanied by court officer and opponent team if they were available that would have been perfect
            Hunter reiterates that from the point of view of a reasonable person and all the reply of hunter are by presuming the allegation to be true not accepting hunter concludes as hunter has to learn a lot….{Hunter wishes she (he includes she) could add a smiley here} every thing has been written in good faith and comments on conduct are in light mood (humour)

  3. Indignant Participant says:

    There were good things and there were bad things. Sadly, the bad things significantly and remarkably outweighed the good things.
    Firstly, the good things:-
    1. The Escorts Committee was absolutely a delight. They assisted us not just with problems regarding moot court and accommodation, but whatever problem we posed. This was my second moot and prior to this one had horrendous people assisting us so this was highly appreciated. Credit is due where it deserves to be so.
    2. The mess and the accommodation was good (despite the misdirective email regarding blanket and stuff) and so was the food so that is another thing.

    Now the bad things:-
    1. The organizers were back crap crazy and delirious. Common sense is not so common for them. The memorial exchange for the prelims was a disaster. They could not manage that properly. Most teams ended up with the same side for prelims and the ones who didn’t was because there was no memorial for them to exchange as they fucked with the hard copies and persisted with that fuck up as if it was their one goal in life.

    2. Moreover they do not have any sense of time. The itinerary was just a useless and a meaningless piece of paper. Nothing happened on time. The rounds got so mixed up with their organizational incapacity that it affected the participants greatly. They started round two immediately after round one and prior to the commencement of round one was the exchange of memos for round two. Seriously, what is the point of doing that?! The memo exchange for he second round was just a formality as no one got to read it beyond the cause title. They could have easily exchanged both the memos at the same time. That would have made it significantly easier for them to manage time the next day. But no, like I said, persisting with organizational incapacity was their one goal in life. Kudos for doing that properly.

    3. They have a very bad habit of lying about what is going on. Most of the time they lied about the useless ceremonies just to get people there and waste their time which they could have easily used to prepare for rounds. They lied about the SCC presentation which was supposed to have taken place after the memo exchange but they move that up “at the last moment”. Then they lied about results of prelims. They said that the results will be out in the next 5 mins atleast a hundred times. A 10-15 mins delay is justifiable but 1 and a half hour of jackassery and bullshit “cultural” performances just makes the participants deeply regret their existence. We could have enjoyed the performances, no doubt but atleast they shouldnt have made it worse by lying to us. What good did that do? It just spreads a bad word in the entire mooting community. But again, their life goal is to persist with organizational incapacity. So that happened.

    4. Now this point stings the most. The repetition of the problem and the clarification issued by the society. One they copied the problem verbatim. The least the could do was to change the sections and the quantum of sentence according to the sections so that it makes sense. I mean what good are future amity lawyers if they cannot even comprehend and rectify such a small thing. No reasonable forseeability at all. They did issue a clarification but that did not rectify the quantum. In fact it made the entire thing much much much worse. Now, section 376D prescribes minimum 20 years without the provision of going below the minimum prescribed quantum but the problem is still centred around the older provision prior to the Criminal Amendment. Keeping in mind this fuck up…

    5. This part screwed over the actual good teams and memos clubbed with the fact that they invited sessions court judges not appellate court. SUPREME COURT IS A COURT OF LAW NOT A COURT OF FACTS. This one thing was understood by no one. Not a single person. Imagine the public opinion these future amity lawyers are creating. The teams who got into quarters DID NOT ARGUE ON LAW but raised facts repeatedly. Most teams contested conviction and even dumber teams argued that the rape did not happen. That blew my mind. The proposition fucking states that the rape happened and that the appeal is not regarding conviction or acquittal but about the augmentation and reduction of quantum of sentence. AND the fact that none of the judges questioned the teams regarding that is even more surprising. Not a single judge cross questioned the validity of the contentions. Moreover, when I went to one of the judges to figure out why and showed him the clarification, turns out they had no clue that the investigation authorities as per the clarification issued by amity had no negligence on their part. So teams that argued for conviction even though they were already convicted and the teams that argued for acquittal moved ahead.

    This was a very very bad moot competition. The organizers are slackers. They repeated a problem which speaks volumes about their intelligence and they did absolutely nothing to rectify that. The Supreme Court was turned into trial court.
    It is my sincere request to the students involved to amend their ways as otherwise the profession of law is not their cup of tea.

    • Bonafide and Attentive Participant says:

      1. By whatever you have written it seems that you copied your memorial from the previous moot problem you just mentioned.
      2. When does the SLP gets maintainable? when there is violation of law etc. I think you know better. it is with respect to not following mandatory statutory sanction and that per se does not mean that jurisdiction could not have been extended to entertain question of conviction because the moot problem itself has provided loopholes to connect the evidences to accused. To illustrate some the car and bike was found in THE CAMPUS, now the common sense suggests that campus includes numerous establishments (“buildings” for indignant who may not at first understand the term) . another thing clicking on your mind would be the sperm detection test but if you read the things confiscated in panchnama you will not find anything to trace sperms of accused one more thing you would be wondering like the bedsheet found but the bedsheet was found in CAR not at the scene of crime. medical evidences at the most suggest that rape took place but was it the accused really who committed the crime? there are numerous other things my friend with hard work and research you could have found and which would have made Supreme Court entertain submissions not the evidences ( I do not think defence case was required). my friend I can go on making you think why at the first place you commented but I do not have time what ever I have written are just the demo of what could have been done from defence side even hough Supreme Court is not a trial court. my friend if you just had read moot problem with more concentration I would not have wasted my time in reply of your “more frustrated and less substantive comments”. It is my request that for next moot prepare well do not generalize things, by sitting in one court room you cannot say what took place in another and ultimately what takes place inside a moot court room depend upon the potentials of moot court speaker. My friend please start working hard otherwise whose cup of tea it is not ? answer to this question you would not know with this confidence
      3. There might have been some problem regarding memo exchange but in substance moot was wonderful

  4. Siddharth Mathur says:
    September 16, 2015 at 10:28 pm
    “Bulshit moot. Specially the organisers, they suck a bug time.”

    wow!!! Siddharth Mathur you seriously suck BUG time.
    R.I.P ENGLISH

  5. anonymous says:

    guys your moot problem is copied from another moot court competition happened 2 year back in jaipur. now what’s your explanation on it?

  6. Siddharth Mathur says:

    Bulshit moot. Specially the organisers, they suck a bug time. I have been to this moot last time. Specially this idiot guy […]

    • Last year I had participated in this moot. It was very good and it was a amazing experience for me. I think You didnot got any award in this moot so you are crying like a Crocodile .

    • Akshay Viyogi says:

      Mr. Siddharth Mathur its a pity you couldnt win anything but that doesnt give you any right to say that our moot court is shit. More than 50 teams are registered till now , what response will you get when you organise a moot and I seriously doubt your credentials to rate a moot.

Or Comment Here Anonymously

*

X