Principle: Only Parliament or State Legislatures have the authority to enact laws on their own. No law made by the State can take away a person’s fundamental right.

Facts: Parliament enacted a law, which according to a group of lawyers is violating the fundamental rights of traders. A group of lawyers files a writ petition challenging the Constitutional validity of the statute seeking relief to quash the statute and further direct Parliament to enact a new law.

• No writ would lie against Parliament, as the court has no authority to direct Parliament to enact or re-enact a law
•  The court can quash existing law if it violates fundamental rights and can direct Parliament to make a new law.
• The court can quash the existing law if it violates fundamental rights but cannot direct Parliament to make a new law
• The court can quash the existing law if it violates fundamental rights but cannot direct Parliament to make a new law

• The Solicitor General
• The State Chief Legal Officer
•  The High Court 
•  The High Court 

• People who stay in your locality
• People who live adjoining to your residence
• People who might be affected by your actions
• People who might be affected by your actions

214. Which of the following is entrusted with a statutory duty of laying down the standards of professional conduct and etiquette for advocates in India?

• Supreme Court of India
• Bar Association of India
• Bar Council of India
• Bar Council of India

• High Court of Madras
• According to value
•  An unwelcome person
•  An unwelcome person

PRINCIPLE: Every person has the right to defend his or another person’s body or property, if there is a reasonable apprehension of danger to such body or property.

FACTS: Leela Meenamma Iyer is a well-known lawyer and a feminist. She usually works till late, and one day, when she was leaving her chamber for home, two men started following her and harassing her. She raised a hue and cry, and her colleague, Ram Arora, who happened to be passing by, heard her. Ram started calling out names to the other men and they got into a fight. Ram, being strong, soon had them begging for forgiveness. As they were trying to flee, Ram picked up a brick, lying nearby, and hit one of the men on their head. As a result, the man died.
Leela Iyer decided to advocate Ram’s case since she owed him her life. She pleaded the ground of right of private defence for him, requesting the Court to acquit Ram and absolve him of all charges. What should the Court’s decision be?

• Ram should be acquitted since he was trying to protect himself
• The Court should not press charges on Ram, since he was trying to save Leela, and the Right of Private Defence extends to protecting others
• Ram should be punished for murder
• Ram should be punished for murder

Principles:

1) On the death of husband, the widow shall inherit the property of her deceased

husband along with children equally.

2) A widow can not claim the property of the deceased if on the date when

the question of succession opens, she has remarried.

3) A female acquiring property in any way has the absolute title to the property.

Apply the above three principles and decide the case of the following fact situation:

Facts : When Sudhir died, he had 1/3rd share of the family property, which the three brothers

Rudhir, Sudhir and Yasu inherited from their father, B.

Sudhir died on September 23' 2006 without having any issue. The widow of

Sudhir,

Ms. Win remarried on January 1, 2007.

Rudhir and Yasu refused 'Win' the share from Sudhir's portion when Win claimed the

entire property belonging to Sudhir on January 30, 2007.

Select your decision from the possible decisions given in list 1 and the appropriate

reason from the indicated reasons given in list H given below:

List I - Decisions

(a) Win cannot inherit the property of Sudhir

(b) Win can inherit the property of Sudhir

List II - Reasons

i) Win does not belong to the family

ii) Win was remarried

iii) Her claim was on the date of Sudhir's death

iv) Her claim was submitted after she was remarried

• (a) (i)

• (a) (ii)

• (b) (iii)

• (b) (iii)

Principles:

1) If a person commits an act by which death is caused by another person and the act is

done with the intention of causing death, that person is liable for murder.

2) A person has a right of self-defense to the extent of causing death to another

provided he apprehends death by the act of the latter.

Facts

Shuva went to a hardware shop owned by Anup. Bargaining on some item led to an altercation

between the two and Shuva picked up a sharp object and hit at Anup. When Anup started

bleeding, his wife Mridula intervened and she was also hit by Shuva and she became

unconscious. Finding himself totally cornered, Anup delivered a severe blow to Shuva

with a sharp object. Shuva died instantly.

Possible decisions

a) Anup murdered Shuva.

b) Anup killed Shuva with the intention of killing to save himself and his wife

C) Anup killed Shuva without any intention to do so just to save himself and his wife

Probable reasons for the decision

i) If a person kills another I instantly on the spot, the intention to kill is obvious.

ii) Anup used force apprehending death of himself and his wife.

ill) Anup used disproportionate force.

iv) There was nothing to show that Shuva wanted to kill Anup or his wife. 

Your decision with reason:

• (a) (i)

• (a) (iii)

• (c) (ii)

• (c) (ii)

Principles:

1) Consumable goods which are not fit for consumption are not marketable.

2) A consumer shall not suffer on account of unmarketable goods.

3) A seller is liable for knowingly selling unmarketable goods.

4) A manufacturer shall be liable for the quality of his products. Facts

Ram bought a Coca Cola bottle from Shama's shop. Back at home, the server opened the bottle and poured the drink into the glasses of Ram and his friend Tom. As Tom started drinking, he felt irritation in his throat. Immediately, Ram and Tom took the sample to test and found nitric acid in the content. Ram filed a suit against Shama, Coca Cola company and the bottler, Kishen

and Co. Suggested Decisions

(a) Ram cannot get compensation

(b) Tom can get compensation

(c) Both Ram and Tom can get compensation

Suggested Reasons

i) Shama did not know the contents of sealed bottle.

ii) Ram did not actually suffer though he bought the bottle.

iii) Tom did not buy the bottle.

iv) Coca Cola company is responsible since it supplied the concentrate.

v) Kishen & Co, is responsible since it added water, sugar, etc., and sealed the bottle.

vi) Shama is responsible for selling the defective product.

Your decision with the reason

• (a) (ii)

• (b) (vi)

• (b) (vi)

• (b) (vi)

Principles

1. If A is asked to do something by B, B is responsible for the act, not A.

2. If A, while acting for B commits a wrong, A is responsible for the wrong, not B.

3. If A is authorised to do something for B, but in the name of A without disclosing B's

presence, both A and B may be held liable.

Facts

Somu contracted with Amar whereunder Amar would buy a pump set to be used in Somu'sfarm. Such a pumpset was in short supply in the market. Gulab, a dealer, had such a pumpset and he refused to sell it to Amar. Amar threatened Gulab of serious consequences if he fails to part with the pumpset. Gulab filed a complaint against Amar.

Proposed Decision

(a) Amar alone is liable for the wrong though he acted for Somu.

(b) Amar is not liable for the wrong, though he is bound by the contract with

Somu.

(c) Somu is bound by the contract and liable for the wrong. (d) Both Somu and Amar are liable for

the wrong.

Suggested Reasons

i) Amar committed the wrong while acting for the benefit of Somu.

ii) Amar cannot do while acting for Somu something which he cannot do while acting for

himself.

iii) Both Amar and Somu are liable since they are bound by the contract.

iv) Somu has to be responsible for the act of Amar committed for Somu's benefit.

Your decision with the reason

• (a) (i)

• (a) (ii)

• (d)

• (d)