📊 PART 1: 100 MORE CASE RATIOS

(Evidence + Arbitration + Limitation Special – Rapid Memory Format)

⚖ A. INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT (1–40)

1. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer – 65B certificate mandatory for electronic evidence.

2. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao – 65B compliance mandatory unless original device produced.

3. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram – Last seen theory requires proximity.

4. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra – Five golden principles (circumstantial evidence).

5. Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. – Circumstances must exclude every hypothesis except guilt.

6. Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh – If two views possible, adopt one favouring accused.

7. Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P. – Adverse inference for withholding best evidence.

8. Laxman v. State of Maharashtra – Doctor certificate not mandatory for dying declaration.

9. P.V. Radhakrishna v. State of Karnataka – Conviction possible solely on dying declaration.

10. State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal – Minor contradictions immaterial.

11. Nisar Ali v. State of U.P. – FIR not substantive evidence.

12. Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan – Corroboration of child witness rule of prudence.

13. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh – Victim testimony in rape needs no corroboration if reliable.

14. Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra – Burden shifts where offence inside house.

15. Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) – Conspiracy inferred from circumstances.

16. State of Maharashtra v. Suresh – Conduct relevant under Section 8.

17. Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor – Discovery under Section 27 must relate to fact discovered.

18. Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra – Extra-judicial confession weak evidence.

19. Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh – Tape-recorded evidence admissible if authentic.

20. 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)

41. Renusagar Power Co. v. General Electric Co. – Public policy narrow interpretation (foreign awards).

42. ONGC v. Saw Pipes Ltd. – Patent illegality ground expanded.

43. ONGC v. Western Geco – Wednesbury reasonableness in public policy.

44. Associate Builders v. DDA – Detailed public policy test.

45. Ssangyong Engineering v. NHAI – Public policy narrowed post amendment.

46. Booz Allen & Hamilton v. SBI Home Finance – Arbitrability test (rights in rem non-arbitrable).

47. Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading – Fourfold test for arbitrability.

48. Perkins Eastman v. HSCC – Interested party cannot appoint sole arbitrator.

49. TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering – Ineligible arbitrator cannot nominate another.

50. 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)

71. Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji – Liberal approach in condonation.

72. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy – Length of delay not decisive.

73. P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala – Law of limitation must be applied strictly.

74. Khatri Hotels v. Union of India – Limitation begins when cause of action first arises.

75. Bharat Barrel & Drum v. ESI Corporation – Burden of proof principle.

76. Union of India v. West Coast Paper Mills – Limitation bars remedy, not right.

77. 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

1. Accused seeks default bail on 61st day – charge sheet filed on 62nd. Decide.

2. Agreement to sell after 8 years – readiness doubtful. Grant decree?

3. PASA detention based on 3 FIRs only – valid?

4. Electronic evidence without 65B – admissible?

5. Arbitrator appointed by interested party – valid?

6. 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:

1. State principle

2. Cite leading case

3. Explain ratio in one line

4. Apply briefly