Principle: One of the principles of natural justice is Nemo judex in causa sua. which means that no one should be a judge in his own cause. In other words, no person can judge a case in which he has an interest.

Facts: ‘X’, a member of the selection board for a government service, was also a candidate for selection for the same service. ‘X’ did not take part in the deliberations of the board when his name was considered and approved.

• Selection of ‘X’ is against the principle of natural justice.
• Selection of ‘X’ is not against the principle of natural justice.
• Non-selection of ‘X’ will be against the principles of natural justice.
• Non-selection of ‘X’ will be against the principles of natural justice.

 Principle: Strike is a collective stoppage of work by workmen undertaken in order to bring pressure upon those who depend on the sale or use of the products of work: whereas, lock-out is a weapon in the hands of the employer. similar to that of strike in the armoury of workmen.

Used for compelling persons employed by him to accept his terms or conditions of or affecting employment. While in closure there is permanent closing down of a place of employment or part thereof, in lay-off an employer. who is willing to employ, fails or refuses or is unable to provide employment for reasons beyond his control.

Facts: Workmen of a textile factory went on strike as per law, demanding the payment of bonus. Employer of the factory refused to pay any extra allowances, including bonus. and besides he closed down the factory till the strike was stopped.

• Act of closing down the factory by the employer amounted to strike
• Act of closing down the factory by the employer amounted to lay-off
• Act of closing down the factory by the employer amounted to lock-out
• Act of closing down the factory by the employer amounted to lock-out

Principle: Trade dispute means any dispute between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen. or between employers and employers which is connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of employment or the conditions of labour, of any person. Disputes connected with the non-employment must be understood to include a dispute connected with a dismissal, discharge. removal or retrenchment of a workman.

Facts: ‘X’, an employee in a sugar factory, raised a dispute against ‘Y’. the employer, through trade union regarding certain matters connected with his suspension from the employment.

• Matters connected with suspension can amount to a trade dispute
• Matters connected with suspension camiot amount to a trade dispute
• Only after dismissal. matters connected with suspension can amount to a trade dispute
• Only after dismissal. matters connected with suspension can amount to a trade dispute

PRINCIPLE:Ignorantiajuris not excusat and ingnorntiafacitexcusat.

FACT: George was passenger from Zurich to Manila in Swiss plane. When the plane landed at the airport at Bombay on 28th Nov 1962 it was found on searct that George carried 34 Kgs of gold bars in Person and that he had not declared it in the ‘Manifest for transit’. on 26th Nov.1962 Government of India issued a notification and modified its earliest exemption and now it is necessary that, the gold must the declared in the “Manifest” of the aircraft.

• George cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued only two days ago.
• George cannot prosecuted because it is mistake of fact which is excusable.
• George’s will be prosecuted because mistake of law is not excusable.
• George’s will be prosecuted because mistake of law is not excusable.

PRINCIPLE: Nuisance as a tort (Civil wrong) means an unlawful interference with a person’s use of enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it.

FACT: During the scarcity of onions, long queues were made outside the defendant’s shop who having a license to sell fruits and vegetables used to sell only 1 kg. of onion per ration cart. The queues extended on the highway and also caused some obstruction to the neighbouring shops. The neighbouring shopkeepers brought and action for nuisance against the defendant.

• The defendant is liable for nuisance
• The defendant was not liable for nuisance
• The defendant was liable under the principle of strict liability
• The defendant was liable under the principle of strict liability

PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong of contrary of law.

FACT: A takes his son B who is three years old, for a bath to the well. He throws his son inside the well so that he could have a good bath. After 10 minutes he also jumped in the well to take bath and take his son out of the well. Both were rescused by the villagers but his son was found dead.

• A has committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder
•  A has committed murder
• A has done no offence as he can plead the defence of unsoundness of mind
• A has done no offence as he can plead the defence of unsoundness of mind

PRINCIPLE:“Nobody shall unlawfully interfere with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it. The use or enjoyment, envisaged herein, should be normal and reasonable taking into account surrounding situation.”

FACT: Jeevan and Pavan were neighbours in residential locality. Pavan started a typing class in a part of his house and his typing sound disturbed Jeevan who could not put up with and kind of continuous noise. He filed a suit against Pavan.

• Pavan is liable, because he should not have started typing class in his house
• Pavan is liable, because as s neighbour, he should have realized Jeevan’s delicate nature.
• Pavan is not liable, because typing sound did not disturb a anyone else other than Jeevan.
• Pavan is not liable, because typing sound did not disturb a anyone else other than Jeevan.

PRINCIPLE: Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstances of the case are such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence is, in its self, equivalent to speech.

FACT: A sells, by auction, to B, a horse, which A knows to be unsound. A says nothing to B about the horse’s unsoundness.

• A can be held liable for fraud.
• A can be held liable for misrepresentation
• A cannot be held liable, because he did not say anything positive about the soundness of horse.
• A cannot be held liable, because he did not say anything positive about the soundness of horse.

PRINCIPLE: Injuria sine Damnum i.e. injury without damage.

FACT: SONU, who was returning officer at a polling booth, wrongly refused to register a duly tendered vote of MONU, though he was qualified voter, The candidate, whom MONU sought to vote, was declared elected.

• MONU can sue SONU on the ground that he was denied to caste vote, which is fundamental right.
• MONU can sue SONU on the ground that he was denied to caste vote, which is a legal right.
• MONU can sue SONU because there is no injury or damage cause to MONU.
• MONU can sue SONU because there is no injury or damage cause to MONU.

260.

PRINCIPLE: Doctrine of Double Jeopardy: No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence twice.

FACT: Maqbool brought some gold into India without making any declaration to Custom Department on the airport. The custom authorities confiscated the gold under the Sea Customs Act. Maqbook was later charged for having committed an offence under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.

• He cannot be prosecuted because it would amount to double jeopardy.
• He can be prosecuted because confiscation of good by custom authorities doen not amount to prosecution by the Court.
•  Maqbool ought to have known that he can be stopped by the custom authorities.
•  Maqbool ought to have known that he can be stopped by the custom authorities.