Court room 2: Claimant speaker 1 began by responding to the contention related to the consent made by the respondent's speaker 1. He cited supporting facts while contending that the consent was in fact present. Mr. Mishra pointed out a contrary fact and asked a question, to which the speaker couldn't give a satisfactory answer and was asked to proceed. Ms. Prasad asked a question on intent, in response to which the speaker cited a case law. The judges didn't seem to buy the answer and asked the speaker to proceed with the next issue. The judges asked the first speaker to quickly summarize the second issue and the second speaker then began with the merits of the case.