MOOT PROBLEM

George & Another V/s Somesh & Another

Mr. George, resident of the State of Capricorn, who owned 8 acres of agricultural land under
survey no. 77/7, filed a suit bearing R.C.S. no.420/2011 before the Civil Judge Junior division, at
State of Capricorn, for Declaration and Injunction against Mr. Joseph on the ground that he is the
sole owner of the agricultural land in dispute. On receipt of summons, Mr. Joseph appeared before
the said Court and engaged a lawyer to conduct his case. Mr. Joseph not only opposed the suit
claim but also filed a counter claim against Mr. George for Declaration and Injunction in respect
of the said property.
The suit was decreed in favour of Mr. George declaring him as the owner of 8 acres of agricultural
land and restrained Mr. Joseph from interfering with peaceful enjoyment of the said agricultural
property of Mr. George.
Aggrieved by the judgement and decree in R.C.S. no. 420/2011 Mr. Joseph filed Regular Appeal
before the First Appellate Court, at State of Capricorn. On receipt of Appeal Notice, Mr. George
engaged Adv. Somesh a famous civil lawyer in the State of Capricorn to represent and argue his
case before the Appellate Court Mr. George paid Fifty Thousand rupees as initial fee to Adv.
Somesh.
When Appeal was posted for hearing, Advocate representing Mr. Joseph argued the matter and
completed his side. However, Adv. Somesh sought several adjournments to argue on behalf of Mr.
George. He did not turn up to argue even when it was posted for final argument.
The Appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial court and decreed the counter claim of Mr.
Joseph in R.C.S. no. 420/2011. The Appellate Court in its judgement noted the absence of
respondent’s Adv. Somesh during the course of argument and pointed out that the Court had no
assistance from respondent’s Advocate in deciding the matter.
The judgement of the Appellate Court was death knell for Mr. George as land in dispute was life
line for him and his family.
Mr. George enquired with his Advocate about his absence during hearing of the Appeal but did
not get a satisfactory answer. However, Adv. Somesh advised Mr. George to file Second Appeal
against the Judgement of the First Appellate Court and referred the name of Adv. Anthony. Mr.
George followed his advice and engaged Adv. Anthony for filing Second Appeal and paid rupees
One Lakh as initial fee.
Adv. Anthony took his own time to file Second Appeal and by the time Second Appeal was filed,
the limitation period was over. Thereafter, he filed Second Appeal along with an Application to
condone the delay. The Second Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal on the ground of limitation
period since no sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay. Adv. Anthony advised Mr.
George to approach the Supreme Court.
Mr. George virtually had no means to continue the litigation before the Supreme Court as he had
lost all the money in litigation. Mr. Joseph spared no time to execute the decree passed in his favour
by the First Appellate Court and took possession over the land in dispute.
Having lost agricultural land, which was life line for him and his family due to inefficiency and
negligence of his Advocates, Adv. Somesh and Adv. Anthony, Mr. George filed case against them
before the National Consumer disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), at State of Capricorn
for deficiency of service and claimed One crore rupees as compensation.
Mr. George argued that there was ‘deficiency of service’ on the part of both the Advocates who
failed to pursue his case before the Appellate Courts in an efficient and professional manner. He
also contended that both the advocates were highly negligent, one of them did not argue his case
before the First Appellate Court and the other advocate failed to file Second Appeal in time before
the High Court and got it dismissed at the threshold, as result of which he had lost his property and
means of livelihood. On notice, both the advocates appeared and argued that, advocates are
immune from any legal action under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 of State of Capricorn, as
Mr. George is not a ‘Consumer’ under the Act and their relationship as client and advocate is a
‘Contract for personal service’. They argued that they are merely his agents and represented him
in the Court and are Officers of the Court and no legal action can be initiated for actions done in
the course of judicial proceeding. Further, it was argued that, it is for the Court to decide the case
on its merit and no advocate can guarantee the result.
The NCDRC, however, allowed the claim of Mr. George holding that there was ‘deficiency of
service’ and awarded one rupees as compensation and directed both the advocate to pay together
the award amount within two months from the date of the order.
The said order created havoc among the legal fraternity and became national news. Within two
months of passing of his Order there were two thousand cases filed against advocates across the
country before consumer forums for deficiency of service.
Both the advocates approached the Supreme Court of State of Capricorn against the award of
NCDRC and contended that among other things that the said award is also in violation of Article
19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of State of Capricorn. The Supreme Court issued stay against the
operation, execution of the award.
Now the case is set for hearing before the Supreme Court of State of Capricorn Issues:
ISSUE 1. WHETHER THE ADVOCATES FALL WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986OF STATE OF CAPRICORN?
ISSUE 2. WHETHER THE AWARD IS IN VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHT TO PRACTICE ANY PROFESSION, OR TO CARRY ON ANY OCCUPATION
AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER ARTICLE 19 (1) (G) OF THE STATE OF CAPRICORN?
Note : the Laws of State of Capricorn is similar as State of India.
 RULES FOR MOOT COURT

DATE OF THE COMPETITION:

22nd Feb 2020 (Compulsory)
LOCATION
In GG classroom will be notified
TEAM COMPOSITION
The team composition, for the competition, shall comprise of two members (being designated as
Speakers)
DRESS CODE
The participants shall adhere to following dress code when present in any court room during the
Competition.
a. Girls: White salwar and kurta or white shirt and black trousers along with black coat and black
shoes.
b. Boys: White shirt, black trousers and black tie along with black coat and black shoes.
GENERAL RULE:
Scouting
Teams shall not be allowed to observe the orals of another team, unless they have been officially
knocked-out of the competition. Scouting is strictly prohibited. Scouting by any team shall entail
instant disqualification.
MARKING CRITERIA FOR SPEAKERS:
Marking Criteria Marks Allotted
Knowledge and Use of Facts 20
Knowledge of the Law 20
Structure of Argument 20
Quality of Argument 20
Overall Presentation (Style, 20
Articulation, Time
Management)
Total 100

Speaker’s Checklist
 Did the speaker introduce him/herself?
  Did the first speaker introduce co-agents and ask the court if they wanted a summary of the
facts of the case?
 Did the first speaker indicate the amount of time allocated for the oral pleadings and which
submissions will be respectively addressed by each team member?
 Did the speaker provide a structured road map outlining the oral pleadings?
 Did the speaker deliver a persuasive and well-structured argument grounded in law?
 Did the speaker demonstrate a strong understanding of the facts presented in the case and
subsequently utilise them to advance their argument?
 Did the speaker compose succinct, coherent and direct responses to the judges’ questions?
 Did the speaker properly cite sources and legal authorities?
 Did the speaker demonstrate the ability to apply the law to the facts of the competition
case?
 Did the speaker provide an adequate conclusion that added value to their overall oral
pleadings?
 Did the speaker from the Applicant side limit the rebuttal to the scope of the Respondent’s
oral pleadings? (Remember that no new arguments are meant to be introduced during the
rebuttal)
 Did the speaker from the Respondent side limit the Sur-rebuttal to the scope of the
Applicant’s rebuttal? (Remember that no new arguments are meant to be introduced during the
sur-rebuttal)
 Did the speaker communicate effectively (for eg. speak slowly, confidently and clearly)?
 Was the speaker respectful to both the judges and opponents, as well as present themselves
in a professional manner?
 Did the speaker manage and make effective use of their time?

TIME

After the judges are introduced by the bailiff and have taken their seats, the Judge will invite the
first Applicant to present their oral pleadings to the court. As stated in the Rules of the Competition,
the order of the pleadings is as follows:

 Applicant 1 (minimum 15) then Applicant 2 (minimum 15);

 Respondent 1 (minimum 15) then Respondent 2 (minimum 15);
 Rebuttal (Applicant 1 or 2, maximum 5 minutes);
 Sur-rebuttal (Respondent 1 or 2, maximum 5 minutes).

Only two (2) team members shall present the arguments during an oral round, and the maximum
time allotted for a team’s oral pleadings, including answering questions from the Moot Court
judges and rebuttals may not exceed thirty (30) minutes per team. When assessing the
participant’s oral arguments, judges should base their criteria on the participant’s Knowledge and
Use of Facts, Knowledge of the Law, Structure of Argument, Quality of Argument, and Overall
Presentation skills (Style, Articulation, Time Management). How the participant analyses the facts
presented in the case, cites legal authorities, rebuts the opponent’s arguments, and structures and
delivers rational, justifiable legal arguments are all critical criteria to consider when assessing the
overall team’s performance. Additionally, judges should take into consideration how a speaker
manages time as well as the style and composure of the speaker. The ability to present and
adequately address critical issues within the allotted time constraints separates a skilled mooter
from a novice. Judges should also consider how participants demonstrate clarity of speech, a high
level of confidence, and proper court room etiquette. Finally, judges must consider the overall
persuasiveness of the argument and whether it passes muster in law.

SCORING AND MARKING PARTICIPANTS

At the end of the oral round, the judge(s) will adjourn to consider the arguments presented by the
teams. A Score Sheet will be provided to judge(s) to reduce the disparity arising out of subjective
marking and ensure consistency throughout the Competition. Each judge should fulfill the Score
Sheet separately and independently. Each speaker may be awarded minimum of hundred (100) in
their oral argument based on the following criteria:
 Correct legal analysis and its application to facts;
 Relevant citations of treaties, custom, legislation, case law (regional and international),
legal scholars and jurists;
 Recognition of problems, clarity and logic of argument;
 Complete and correct recognition and weighting of issues arising from the case;
 Correct primary and alternative submissions;
 Evidence of original thought;
 Overall presentation;
 Ability to communicate with judges, persuasiveness and fluency.

Judges are also encouraged to write down constructive feedback that they may have in relation to
each speaker, as the participants receive copies of the scoresheets to ensure transparency across
the Moot Court Competition. In the event of a discrepancy in the scoresheet, judges may be
contacted to clarify their marking by the Moot Administrators.

DELIBERATION AND FEEDBACK

After the conclusion of oral argument, teams will leave the room and judge(s) will deliberate on
the result of the round. While the judge(s) may consult one another regarding feedback to
participants, judge(s) are kindly asked not to consult with each other while marking the teams and
filling out the score sheets. This is to ensure that there are three independent assessments of the
participants’ oral presentations.

Following the deliberation, judge(s) will return their score sheets directly to Moot Court
administrators or person appointed by Moot Court administrators for collection of scoresheets, and
only then provide feedback and comments to the two competing teams regarding their
performance. Judges should not announce the scores or the winner of the round enquire about
the identity of the participating team; or make apparent through their comments which team has
won the match.
When addressing the participants and providing feedback regarding the round, judge(s) may begin
by introducing themselves and providing a brief overview of their professional career. Judge(s)
may then provide comments regarding the teams’ performance. Some judge(s) prefer to give
general comments, while other judges prefer to provide more specific and tailored advice to each
speaker. As the aim is to build an encouraging atmosphere, if a judge expresses comments
concerning weaknesses in a team’s performance, it is advisable to accompany such comments with
suggestions about the best method to overcome such weaknesses. Judge(s) should be sensitive,
however, to the fact that teams have made numerous sacrifices in their preparation and
participation for the Moot Court Competition. Overall these comments are warmly received by
participants because they provide critical recommendations for upcoming rounds, future Moot
Court Competitions.