In case the pattadars were compulsorily required to work in the factory for a minimum number of hours every day, then it would be correct to state that:

• The injury was not caused by an accident in the course of employment

• Aashish Mathew would not be an employee as the Company would have still not exercised control over the manner of work

• The injury suffered by Aashish Mathew could not be held to be one caused by an accident.

• The injury suffered by Aashish Mathew could not be held to be one caused by an accident.

According to the facts and the rules specified, which of the following propositions is correct:

• The Company is not liable to pay compensation as the injury to Aashish Mathew was not caused by an accident arising in the course of employment.

• The Company is liable to pay the compensation.

• Since the injury did not arise in the course of employment, the Company would not be liable to pay the compensation even though Aashish Mathew is an employee of the company.

• Since the injury did not arise in the course of employment, the Company would not be liable to pay the compensation even though Aashish Mathew is an employee of the company.

Select the statement that could be said to be most direct inference from specified facts:

• The injury to Aashish Mathew did not arise in the course of employment as he was not rolling bidis at the time when he was hit by the car.

• Since the Ashish Mathew is a contracted pattadar with the Company, it shall be presumed that  theinjury was caused by an accident in the course of employment.

• Since there was no relationship of employment between Aashish Mathew and the Company, the injury suffered by Aashish Mathew could not be held to be one arising in the course of employment notwithstanding the fact that the concerned injury was caused while he was involved in an activity incidental to his duties.

• Since there was no relationship of employment between Aashish Mathew and the Company, the injury suffered by Aashish Mathew could not be held to be one arising in the course of employment notwithstanding the fact that the concerned injury was caused while he was involved in an activity incidental to his duties.

If the pattadars were compulsory required to work in the factory for a minimum number of hours every day, then the Company would have been liable to pay compensation to Aashish Mathew if the latter:

• Had been assaulted and grievously hurt by his neighbour inside the factory precincts over a property dispute.

• Had slipped and fractured his arm while trying to commute on a city bus from his home to the factory.

• Had been injured while commenting on a bus provided by the Company and which he was required by his contract to use every day.

• Had been injured while commenting on a bus provided by the Company and which he was required by his contract to use every day.

Is Lucky guilty of criminal damage?

•  No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he did not intentionally impair the value of the painting.

• Yes, Lucky is guilty of criminal damage as he intentionally stuck the paper on to the painting.

• No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he does not have the painting in his possession anymore.

• No, Lucky is not guilty of criminal damage as he does not have the painting in his possession anymore.

If Lucky had discovered the painting before leaving Indira’s house rather than at the rubbish dump, would he have been guilty of theft in this case?

• Yes, he would be guilty of theft of the newspapers and the paintings.

•  No, he would not be guilty of theft.

• Yes, he would be guilty of theft of the painting.

• Yes, he would be guilty of theft of the painting.

Is Kamala guilty of theft?

•  No, Kamala is now guilty of theft since the person she took the painting from (Lucky) was not its lawful owner.

•  No, Kamala is not guilty of theft since she took the painting only with the motive of returning it to Indira.

•  Yes, Kamala is guilty of theft as she took the painting out of Lucky’s possession without his consent.

•  Yes, Kamala is guilty of theft as she took the painting out of Lucky’s possession without his consent.

Which of the following propositions could be inferred from the facts and the rules specified.

•  Kamala is guilty of criminal damage as the person she took the painting from (Lucky) was not its lawful owner.

• Kamala is guilty of criminal damage as she took the painting without Lucky’s consent.

• Kamala is not guilty of criminal damage as the painting has not been completely destroyed.

• Kamala is not guilty of criminal damage as the painting has not been completely destroyed.

Assume that in the above fact scenario, Khaleeda no longer wants the carpet. She removes the elaborately carved door to the house after the sale has been concluded and claims that Gurpreet has no claim to the door. The door in question was part of Khaleeda’s ancestral home in Nagercoil, Tamil Nadu for more than 150 years before she had it fitted as the entrance to her Baghmara house. 

 As a judge you would decide in favour of:

• Khaleeda because while the rest of the building belongs to Khaleeda exclusively, the door is ancestral property and therefore the decision to sell it cannot be Khaleeda’s alone.

   

• Gurpreet because the door is an integral part of the building as it is attached to it.

   

•  Khaleeda because the door can be removed from the building and is therefore not attached to it.

•  Khaleeda because the door can be removed from the building and is therefore not attached to it.

Rule C: If a moveable thing is placed on land with the intention that it should become an integral part of the land or any structure on the land it becomes a fixture.

Applying Rules A and C, to the fact situations in questions 37 and 38, as a judge you would decide in favour of:

•  Khaleeda in both situations 

•  Gurpreet only in 37

•  Khaleeda only in 38

•  Khaleeda only in 38