Mediation Competition Invitation Poster.

IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS

> SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

Mediation Plans to be mailed at lac.rmlnlu@gmail.com by 5:00 pm on 8th November, 2011.

5 Hard copies of the Mediation Plan to be submitted in Room # 102 by 5:00 pm on 8th November, 2011.

If any participating team has a problem with mediation story or mediation plan and needs clarification then it should be done by 14.00 hours, .8th Nov. No queries will be entertained afterwards...

> There can only be ONE best possible solution and ONE BATNA. Keep this in mind when drawing up your Mediation Plans.

>Amendment to rules (In case participants have not checked their email ids or did not submit the same)

Responsibility sharing – Explain how the individual members of the team, as per their analysis of the dispute and strategy proposed to be adopted, plan to divide the various issues and themes between them, and how they shall divide responsibility of addressing them in the course of their interaction with the litigants. Explain how and what role each individual member proposes to take up and at what stage, especially in case of unforeseen developments, revelations and impasse(description in about least 3 lines).

TEAM CODES FOR INTRA

TEAM CODES

(Its mandatory to mention your team codes in the mediation plan.)

M1 Mitali Chauhan

Shikha Yadav

M2 Aditi Shekhawat (III semester)

Varsha Kumari (III semester

M3 Gaurav Kumar Sem III

Neeraj Singh Sem III

M4 Mehpara Haq

Harshita Deshwal

M5 Shital Priyadarshi, Vth sem.

Pankhuri Sharma, Vth sem.

M6 Kamayani Misra, VIIth Semester

Spriha Sinha, VIIth Semester

M7 Deepshri Srivastava

Himani Singh

M8 Amrita Singh-3rd sem

Megha Srivastava-3rd sem

M9 Shanya Sharma

Ruchi Verma

M10 Alok Singh

Sudhanshu Shekhar Tripathi

M11 Divya chaudhary

Mehak Gupta

M12 Sankarshan Biswas

Ashish Kaviya

M13 Swati Anand

Priyanka Singh

M14 Garima Yadav

Pooja (2nd year)

M15 Parth Srivastava

Himanshu Jaiswal

M16 Sania Perween

Disha Bangard

M17 Zamie habib

Kritika Singh

M18 Raghav Singh

Srijan Shrey Singh

M19 Yogita Kumar

Tanvi Jain

M20 mohit gupta

Abhishek yadav

M21 Priya Yadav

Urvashi Singh

M22 Utkarsh Kumar

Sanya Agarwal

M23 Diksha Singh

Mallika Nigam

M24 Ayushi Jaiswal

Aritra Chaterjee

M25 Ayan Somwanshi

Shailendra Tiwari

M26 Sarojini Mitra

Shreeja Sen

M27 Pawan Singh Tomar

Vipul Singh

M28 Abhirup Das

Bharat Hari Dhakalia

M29 Shubhi Khare

Vedang Mishra

M30 Poonam Singh

Smiti Verma

M31 Vivek Sheoran

Anand Kirti

M32 Disha Sandeepan

Renu Shekhawat

M33 Rashi bajpayee

Sukriti Guha

M34 Kavya Singh

Amita

M35 Shree Agnihotri

Saurabh verma

M36 Richa yadav

Jyotsna Nisha

M37 Ishita yadu

Abhidip sengupta

M38 Sidhant Jaiswal

Akriti

M39 Harsha Yadav

Swasti Mishra

M40 Rohit Singh

Rushil Chandra

M41 Arpit Goel

Anupam

M42 Vaibhav Dixit

Vishwas Sharma

M43 Aviral Umrao

Abhishek yadav

M44 Rohit Sharma

Sree Moyi

M45 Palash Prasad Yadav

Satyesh Yadav

M46 Krishna Gopal Saraswat (7th Semester)

Krishna Veer Singh (7th Semester).

M47 Anindya roy

Shuvro lahiri

M48 Saket Gupta

Ramesh Maali

M49 Kritika Shukla

Ryan Gerard Wilson

M50 Samiuddin Malik

Kautuk Singh

M51 Mohammad Hashim

Devanshu Gupta

M52 Ankit Prakash

Rashi Mishra

M53 Garima Yadav

Akanksha kanaujia

M54 Nitin Singh (3rd sem)

Rahul Raman

M55 Priyanka Choudhary

Shrilekha dash

M56 Jyotsna Raman

Ankita Singh

M57 Devraj Singh

Krishna Agarwal

M58 Ankit Mishra

Ankur Pastor

M59 Shashank Singhal

Samarth Krishna

M60 Devika Agarwal

Milinda Sengupta

M61 Priyam Ratnam

Vrishali Gupta

M62 Manish Rohilla

Ipsita Majumdar

University Intra Rounds- RULES

1st RMLNLU NATIONAL MEDIATION COMPETITITON-University Intra Round

12th – 13th November, 2011.

RULES

Rule 0.0 Definitions

The following terms have the corresponding meanings:

 “ADR” means Alternative Dispute Resolution.

 “BATNA” means Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement, and refers to what a Party’s best case scenario would be if the Parties fail to reach an agreement.

 “Confidential Information” means the background factual information of the Problem for the exclusive use of a Party and the Judges, but not the Mediators.

 “General Information” means the background factual information of the Problem for the use by each Party, the Judges and the mediators.

 “Competing Team” means the 2 students from one Team competing in one specific Mediation Session in the role of co- mediators.

 “Mediator” refers to the roles taken by the 2 members of a Team during each Mediation Session; together they are referred to as the “Competing Team”.

 “Cross-Caucus” means a self assessment session between the judges and the participants.

 “Competition” means the 1st Dr. RMLNLU National Mediation Competition (University Intra Round), 2011.

 “Judge” means a professional mediator selected by the Organizing Committee who evaluates and scores the students’ performance during a Mediation Session in accordance with the Judges scoring guidelines.

 “Judging Criteria” means the criteria set out in the Score Sheet with the judges.

 “Mediation Plan” means each Team’s written case analysis referred to in Rule 3.0.

 “Organizing Committee” means the RMLNLU Legal Aid Committee which is in charge of organizing and managing the Competition.

 “Penalties” means points deducted for any rule violation.

 “Prohibited Assistance” means advice, instructions, or other communication to a Team by anyone, including the coach.

 “Problem” means a case study distributed by the Organizing Committee, as supplemented or corrected by any Problem Clarifications, that Teams will deal with the during the Mediation Sessions.

 “Problem Clarifications” means the official clarifications or corrections of the competition problems by the Organizing Committee or the judge.

 “Rules” means these Competition Rules.

 “Score Sheet” means the document in Annexure II of these rules.

 “Timekeeper” means a person appointed by the Organizing Committee to keep time during a Mediation Session.

 “WATNA” means Worst Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement, and refers to what a Party’s worst case scenario would be if the Parties fail to reach an agreement.

RULE 1.0 Organization of the Competition

Rule 1.1 Introductions

Given the pendency rates in the Indian Judiciary, Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms have become increasingly relevant, and even necessary. The Courts in India have become more and more vocal about integrating such ADR mechanism with the courts and pretrial procedure, which reduces the burden on courts and ensures speedy disposal of cases and amicable relations between the parties. One such process is through Mediation between the parties.

The lack of awareness of the availability of such a procedure has been an unfortunate drawback of the system. For a Legal Aid Committee, there can be no more fruitful work than to create awareness about such recourses available to aggrieved persons. The Allahabad High Court is one of the few High Courts in India to take initiative in this regard. The Mediation Centre at Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench has been running successfully and, in collaboration with them, the RMLNLU Legal Aid Committee endeavors to popularize mediation as an alternative to ordinary litigation.

Towards this end, the Committee seeks to organize a National Mediation Competition, the first of its kind in India, to emulate prestigious competitions popular in other countries. It is proposed that students from Law universities across the country are invited to participate in this competition. We hope to create awareness and enthusiasm among law students as well as to train them in the art of mediation in a short training program which will directly precede the competition.

The focus of the competition is the effective combination of the use of the mediator’s collaborative problem solving skills and client representation to progress towards a settlement. It is the university’s hope that the competition will encourage the teaching and learning of effective use of mediation so that tomorrow’s business people and legal practitioners can better meet the dispute resolution needs of an increasingly cross-cultural global market.

This intra Round will decide which team represents this, the host, University in the National Round.

RULE 1.0 Organization of the Competition

Rule 1.2 Language

The official and only language of the Competition is English.

Rule 1.3 Format

The main competition shall be preceded by an Elimination Round. The first 24 teams with the highest marks for the Mediation Plan (See Rule 3) shall proceed to the Preliminary Round of the Mediation Competition.

The Competition consists of a single Preliminary, Quarter Final, Semi Final and Final Round.

The marks obtained in the Mediation Plan will be added on to the points obtained in the Preliminary Round for determining which teams qualify for the Quarter Final Round. Thereafter, advance to the Semi Final and Final Round will be on the basis of points of the immediately preceding round only.

RULE 2.0 Mediation Session Procedures

2.1 Timing

Each Mediation Session during the Preliminary and the Quarter Final Round will run for a total of 25 minutes + 5 minutes for Cross Caucus at the end of the session. The Semi Final and the Final Round will run for 30 minutes + 10 minutes for Cross Caucus at the end of the session.

Rule 2.2 Judging Criteria

The Judging Criteria, as given in the Annexure II, are applied to the performance of both mediators forming the competing team.

No extra points will be awarded for reaching a settlement during the Mediation. Evaluation is on the basis of the participants’ interaction with the client – tact, tactics, knowledge of law and overcoming impasse with clients.

Rule 2.3 Clients and Judges

In each Mediation Session, two experienced professional mediators will serve as Judges. The Judges will evaluate and score the performance of the Teams according to the Judging Criteria. Every attempt will be made for the Teams to face different Judges in each round. Volunteers for the Organizing Committee shall be trained as Clients. The Organizing Committee is responsible for selecting the clients and the Judges.

The Organizing Committee will make every effort to ensure that the clients and Judges are independent and impartial to the Teams they are involved with.

Rule 2.4 Timekeeping

Responsibility of timekeeping rests with the Timekeepers during the Mediation Sessions.

The Timekeeper’s decision is final in this respect.

Rule 2.5 Exhibits and Props

During the Mediation Session each Competing Team can bring their own notes and can, if need be, make their own notes on separate sheets of paper. No electronic device will be allowed within the Mediation Room.

Rule 2.6 Judges’ Scoring

Following the Mediation, the Teams and the Clients shall leave the room and the Judges will evaluate the performance of each competing Team in accordance with the instructions set out. The Timekeeper shall remain in the room with the Judges.

Rule 2.7 Cross Caucus

Each of the Judges will provide a cross caucus session to each Competing Team, for no more than the prescribed time period for each session (See Rule 2.1). It will be based on each competing Team’s performance in the Mediation Session.

Rule 2.9 Scores and Ranking Provided to the Teams

After the end of the Competition, each Team shall receive its Score Sheets and the ranking of all the Teams after the Preliminary Round.

RULE 3.0 Mediation Plan

Each Team shall provide a Mediation Plan for each Mediation Session in which it competes according to the Instructions for Participants in Annexure I.

Mediation Plans should contain a case analysis evaluating the strategic strong points and weak points of the Requesting Party and the Responding Party respectively, their needs and interests, their BATNAs and their objectives and goals during the Mediation.

Submission of the Mediation Plan is to be mailed at lac.rmlnlu@gmail.com .

RULE 4.0 Clarifications and Interpretation of the Problems

Every effort will be made to ensure that the Problems are clear. Each Team may submit to the Organizing Committee, on or before 2nd November, 2011, a maximum of three written questions for clarification or interpretation on the released Problem. These requests shall relate only to the Problem. The Organizing Committee will have complete discretion in answering questions. No new facts will be added to the Problems.

While Teams may not make up new facts, the facts of the Problems are subject to reasonable interpretation. Whether a Team’s interpretation is reasonable is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Judges. Teams may draw reasonable inferences from the facts provided.

Rule 5.0 Eligible Students

The Competition is open to all students of the University.

RULE 6.0 Team Applications and Registration

Rule 6.1 Online Application

Each Team willing to participate may apply online at lac.rmlnlu@gmail.com on or before 21st October 2011 before 23.59 hours.

Rule 7.0 Miscellaneous

Rule 7.1 Confidential Information

Judges and parties must keep the contents of the Confidential Information strictly secret from Teams and may not directly or indirectly disclose any Confidential Information to any other person. Clients may disclose their Confidential Information in the course of the Mediation.

Rule 7.2 Powers to Take Additional Measures

The Organizing Committee may take such other measures as are required for the orderly conduct of the Competition.

Rule 7.3 Interpretations of Rules

The Organizing Committee’s interpretation as to the implementation of the Rules is final.

ANNEXURE I

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PARTICIPANTS

A. Rules

Please review carefully the Rules including all Annexes: please prepare well so that you understand what is required of you.

B.

Please remember that the Competition is a mediation one, so do use Mediation.

C. Mediation Plan

Pursuant to Rule 3 of the Rules, each Team must provide the Organizing Committee on or before 8th November 2011, 5 copies of its finalized Mediation Plans for the Preliminary Round. Upon submission to the Organizing Committee, Teams will not be permitted to modify their Mediation Plans. Details of the relevant persons, exact time and venue of this submission shall be notified in due course.

The Mediation Plan cannot be more than 3 pages in 12-point, Times new roman, 1.5 spacing.

The Mediation Plan should contain a case analysis consisting of a brief evaluation under each of the following headings:

1. Identification of factual issues

2. Identification of legal issues

3. Best possible solution

4. BATNA (You must think over carefully as to what you want to achieve in negotiation and what will be the alternative if you can’t achieve what you want. This alternative is your BATNA. Hint: Develop your BATNA by thinking of actions in case of no agreement between the parties, improve and convert them into practical ideas and then select the best alternative. The better your BATNA, the greater is your power to negotiate.)

5. Responsibility sharing – Explain how the individual members of the team, as per their analysis of the dispute and strategy proposed to be adopted, plan to divide the various issues and themes between them, and how they shall divide responsibility of addressing them in the course of their interaction with the litigants. Explain how and what role each individual member proposes to take up and at what stage, especially in case of unforeseen developments, revelations and impasse (description in about least 3 lines).

6. Party’s Interests – Describe the interests that each party is likely to advance in the Mediation (description in about 3 lines).

7. Mediation Strategy – the mediation strategy in light of the preceding factors. (description in about 3 lines)

Annexure II

JUDGE’S SCORE SHEET

Judging Criterions

Marks Assigned

1. Opening Statement

/10

2. Identification of issues

/10

3. Breaking impasse

/ 10

4. Problem solving

/10

5. Self assessment

/10

6. Team effort and Co-ordination between members on the same issues.

/10

MEDIATION PROBLEM

NATIONAL MEDIATION COMPETITION UNIVERSITY INTRA ROUNDS- MEDIATION PROBLEM

Dispute between the Government and a private contractor regarding a project for completion of a stadium for the Commonwealth Games.

Kalmadi & Associates entered into a contract with the Government to build a residential complex in the “Games Village” as a part of the preparations for the Commonwealth Games.

Kalmadi & Associates was a new company entering the market and had not made any reputation or goodwill in the market at the time of finalization of this deal. Nevertheless, the bid of Kalmadi & Associates was accepted because the tendered price was lowest in comparison to the other competitors. Kalmadi & Co. offered further inducements by proposing to provide maintenance for the residential complex for one year at very low cost.

The date for the handing over of the complex to the Government was fixed for 10th October, 2010. The work was planned to be completed in 3 stages by the builders. However, the work of the second stage was not completed even by 10th September, 2010 and it was highly unlikely that the project could be completed by 10th October, 2010 and the complex handed over to the Government/Games Authorities. There were reports of corruption and use of low quality material in the construction of the complex by the company. The Government of NCT filed a suit against Kalmadi & Associates. Kalmadi & Associates argued that the delay was due to the rise in prices of construction material because of inflation, and the Government failed to increase the contract amount even after timely intimation of these problems.

The court has referred the dispute to mediation.