100 MORE CASE RATIOS

Posted on February 26, 2026 by Admin

📊 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.