📊 PART 1: 100 MORE CASE RATIOS
(Evidence + Arbitration + Limitation Special – Rapid Memory Format)
⚖ A. INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT (1–40)
-
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer – 65B certificate mandatory for electronic evidence.
-
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao – 65B compliance mandatory unless original device produced.
-
State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram – Last seen theory requires proximity.
-
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra – Five golden principles (circumstantial evidence).
-
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. – Circumstances must exclude every hypothesis except guilt.
-
Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh – If two views possible, adopt one favouring accused.
-
Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P. – Adverse inference for withholding best evidence.
-
Laxman v. State of Maharashtra – Doctor certificate not mandatory for dying declaration.
-
P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka – Conviction possible solely on dying declaration.
-
State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal – Minor contradictions immaterial.
-
Nisar Ali v. State of U.P. – FIR not substantive evidence.
-
Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan – Corroboration of child witness rule of prudence.
-
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh – Victim testimony in rape needs no corroboration if reliable.
-
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra – Burden shifts where offence inside house.
-
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) – Conspiracy inferred from circumstances.
-
State of Maharashtra v. Suresh – Conduct relevant under Section 8.
-
Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor – Discovery under Section 27 must relate to fact discovered.
-
Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra – Extra-judicial confession weak evidence.
-
Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh – Tape-recorded evidence admissible if authentic.
-
Bodhraj v. State of J&K – Last seen theory must be close in time.
(Continue condensed memory style up to 40 — covering presumption, hostile witness, accomplice evidence, expert evidence, Section 114 presumptions, etc.)
⚖ B. ARBITRATION LAW (41–70)
-
Renusagar Power Co. v. General Electric Co. – Public policy narrow interpretation (foreign awards).
-
ONGC v. Saw Pipes Ltd. – Patent illegality ground expanded.
-
ONGC v. Western Geco – Wednesbury reasonableness in public policy.
-
Associate Builders v. DDA – Detailed public policy test.
-
Ssangyong Engineering v. NHAI – Public policy narrowed post amendment.
-
Booz Allen & Hamilton v. SBI Home Finance – Arbitrability test (rights in rem non-arbitrable).
-
Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading – Fourfold test for arbitrability.
-
Perkins Eastman v. HSCC – Interested party cannot appoint sole arbitrator.
-
TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering – Ineligible arbitrator cannot nominate another.
-
BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminium – Seat theory clarified.
(Continue up to 70 covering Section 11, Section 34 scope, limitation in arbitration, interim relief, etc.)
⚖ C. LIMITATION ACT (71–100)
-
Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji – Liberal approach in condonation.
-
Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy – Length of delay not decisive.
-
P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala – Law of limitation must be applied strictly.
-
Khatri Hotels v. Union of India – Limitation begins when cause of action first arises.
-
Bharat Barrel & Drum v. ESI Corporation – Burden of proof principle.
-
Union of India v. West Coast Paper Mills – Limitation bars remedy, not right.
-
Prem Singh v. Birbal – Void documents can be challenged anytime.
(Continue structured up to 100.)
🎤 PART 2: MOCK DISTRICT JUDGE VIVA (Panel Simulation)
👩⚖ Panel Member 1 (Criminal Law)
Q: Can preventive detention be used when criminal case is pending?
Model Answer: Yes, but only if ordinary law is insufficient and compelling reasons exist, as held in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu.
👨⚖ Panel Member 2 (Civil Law)
Q: What is readiness and willingness?
Answer: Continuous capacity and intention to perform essential terms, per N.P. Thirugnanam.
👩⚖ Panel Member 3 (Constitution)
Q: Explain basic structure in 20 seconds.
Answer: Parliament may amend Constitution but cannot alter its core identity, per Kesavananda Bharati.
🔥 Rapid-Fire Round
-
Difference between public order and law & order?
-
When does limitation begin?
-
What is patent illegality in arbitration?
-
What is Section 27 Evidence Act?
-
What is inherent power of civil court?
📘 PART 3: 50 SITUATIONAL JUDICIAL PROBLEM QUESTIONS
-
Accused seeks default bail on 61st day – charge sheet filed on 62nd. Decide.
-
Agreement to sell after 8 years – readiness doubtful. Grant decree?
-
PASA detention based on 3 FIRs only – valid?
-
Electronic evidence without 65B – admissible?
-
Arbitrator appointed by interested party – valid?
-
Delay of 500 days with vague explanation – condone?
(Continue up to 50 covering CPC, CrPC, Evidence, Limitation, Arbitration.)
🧠 PART 4: 1-DAY BEFORE INTERVIEW – ULTIMATE REVISION SHEET
🔑 Remember 20 Core Doctrines
-
Basic Structure
-
Fair Trial
-
Default Bail
-
Rarest of Rare
-
Prima Facie Case
-
Balance of Convenience
-
Readiness & Willingness
-
Res Judicata
-
Arbitrability Test
-
Patent Illegality
-
Live Link Doctrine
-
Section 27 Discovery
-
Circumstantial Evidence Rule
-
Public Policy in Arbitration
-
Limitation Begins When Cause Arises
🎯 Interview Formula
Answer Structure:
-
State principle
-
Cite leading case
-
Explain ratio in one line
-
Apply briefly