Advertise on podcast: Selection Academy - Lectures on Law

When does a wrong decision become illegal? More importantly, can a court set aside an arbitral award simply because it disagrees with the arbitrator? In this episode, we explore the doctrine of Patent Illegality and understand how Indian arbitration law has evolved from protecting contracts to protecting the finality of arbitral awards. Rather than treating case law as isolated judgments, we follow the journey of the doctrine and the reasoning behind each landmark decision. The episode discusses the evolution of Patent Illegality through: 1. ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. – Introduction of Patent Illegality as a ground of challenge. 2. Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority – Limits of judicial interference, perversity and the Possible View Doctrine. 3. The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 – Introduction of Section 34(2A) and statutory recognition of Patent Illegality. 4. Ssangyong Engineering v. NHAI – Narrowing the scope of judicial review after the 2015 Amendment. 5. Jan De Nul Dredging India Pvt. Ltd. v. Tuticorin Port Authority – Reaffirming that courts cannot reassess merits, rewrite contracts, or interfere merely because another interpretation appears preferable. In this episode, you'll understand: 1. Why Patent Illegality was introduced 2. The difference between review and appeal 3. Why courts do not re-appreciate evidence 4. The relationship between Patent Illegality and the Possible View Doctrine 5. How the Supreme Court's approach has evolved from Saw Pipes to Jan De Nul Because arbitration is not about finding the perfect decision—it is about ensuring that the decision remains within the boundaries of law.

What happens when two reasonable people look at the same contract, the same evidence, and reach different conclusions? Can a court set aside an arbitral award simply because it prefers another interpretation? In this episode, we explore the Possible View Doctrine, one of the most important principles in arbitration law. Using simple examples and a memorable analogy from Majnu Bhai's painting in Welcome, we understand why courts do not interfere with an arbitral award merely because another view is possible. We also discuss the landmark judgments of Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority, Ssangyong Engineering v. NHAI and Jan De Nul Dredging India Pvt. Ltd. v. Tuticorin Port Trust.

sorry, there is a correction it's Section 4 of BNS,2023. Why do people read messages instantly but reply hours later? Can silence, blue ticks, delayed emails, or WhatsApp chats become legal evidence? In this episode, we break down the fascinating concept of Res Gestae in the simplest way possible through real-life examples, digital behaviour, arbitration, and modern communication. Learn how courts and arbitrators look beyond words and examine timestamps, conduct, instant reactions, and strategic silence to understand the truth behind disputes. Featuring insights from landmark cases like ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd., Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority, and Ssangyong Engineering v. NHAI along with the approach under the International Bar Association. A conversation about law, psychology, human behaviour, and the digital footprints we leave behind every day.

Let’s be honest — most CLAT students don’t even ask the real question. They join coaching, open books, memorize facts… and months later wonder, “Why am I still not improving?” The truth is simple — CLAT isn’t about how much you study. It’s about how deeply you think. In this episode, we’ll talk about the most ignored skill that decides your CLAT result — Critical Thinking. I’ll show you how every courtroom drama — from a real murder case to a simple lemonade stall dispute — is nothing but an exercise in thinking clearly, spotting assumptions, and reasoning logically. And once you get this, you’ll naturally ask the golden question every smart student should ask: 👉 “Ma’am, if everything depends on critical thinking, then why does CLAT have Legal, Logical, and English sections?” That’s where your preparation transforms — Legal Aptitude trains you to apply the law. Logical Reasoning builds the structure of your mind. English gives you the language to express law. This episode isn’t just about cracking CLAT — it’s about thinking like a lawyer before you become one. 🎧 Tune in and rethink the way you study. Because memory fades — clarity stays. Selection Academy — where teaching isn’t a business, it’s my passion. Physical and online classes available

Concepts are important as thinking tools at all levels be it academic, practical or legal philosophy. The three basic doctrines of legal positivism are : Pedigree Thesis or say Social Fact Thesis which emphasize that it is a necessary truth that legal validity is ultimately a function of certain kinds of social facts. The second doctrine of Conventionality Thesis claims that social facts give rise to legal validity and are authoritative in virtue of some kind of social convention. The third and the most important doctrine is Separability Thesis which further states that law and morality are conceptually different. Judges cannot incorporate moral requirements into law, they can only consider moral requirements in resolving certain unsettled questions of law but according to law. The most important questions of Analytical jurisprudence are "What are laws?" What is the relationship between Law and Power, Law and Morality.

A general understanding of the idea of Consent and Free Consent.

Equity is aimed at preventing a defendant from acting unconsciously (contrary to conscience) in circumstances otherwise where common law would have allowed to do so.

A journey from Fraud to Scam, from traditional identity theft to digital theft. The vulnerabilities of modern youth and how they are honey trapped.

Time and again Medical Negligence has become an area of concern. We cannot expect any kind of negligence from medical professionals. In this podcast, I have explained how Supreme Court of India has made a shift from Bolam to Bolitho test.

Generally students get confused between Natural Law School and Philosophical/Ethical School. An effort has been made to clarify the doubt.

Res Ipsa Loquitur is a Rule of Evidence. The other name that can be given to it is Circumstantial Evidence. In this podcast I am explaining how Supreme Court of India has used time and again this confusing term and have maintained a balance between direct and circumstantial evidence.

Analytical School has played an important role in codification of laws. How the school evolved and how Bentham's and James Mill's Utilitarian Principle played an important role in codification of laws in India, finally giving a title of True Utilitarian to Lord Macaulay.

Law and Morality is interwoven in such a way that sometimes it is so difficult to understand the relationship between them. I have tried to explain the concept with the help of Social Contract Theory.. Where in the Subjects (citizens) willingly give up/surrender their freedoms, rights to the State (Government) and in return seeks guarantee that State shall protect their life, property and Liberty.. When state abuses its power by passing draconian laws, punish its citizens for any unwarranted action against State, there is a breach of Morality, principles of Natural Justice..

Pursuits of profits have absolutely drained emerging entrepreneurs of any feeling for fellow human beings, and law seems to have been helpless, systematic defects. It is such instances which have led many people in this country to believe that disregard of law never pays and that the consequences of such disregard will never be visited upon them, particularly, if they are men with means.

Liabilty is a word used frequently in day to day life, but what it actually mean in Law. How the concept was evolved. What is No Fault and Fault Liability. The case of Ryland vs Fletcher throws a light upon the concept of liabilty. It differentiate between Fault and No Fault Liabilty and evolves a new principle based on No Fault Liability known as Strict liability.