•  1952

•  1950

•  1956

•  1956

•  two States

•  three states

• four states

• four states

•  the National Security Council recommended the exemption of J & K from its purview

• of its Special Constitutional status

•  the state legislature passed a special resolution seeking exemption from the Act

•  the state legislature passed a special resolution seeking exemption from the Act

• West Bengal

• Himachal Pradesh

•  Rajasthan

•  Rajasthan

• Judicial intervention

• Political parties

• Parliamentary act

• Parliamentary act

• Article 363

• Article 364

• Article 365

• Article 365

• The Parliament

•  the President

•  Union Home Ministry

•  Union Home Ministry

 A master shall be liable for the acts of his servants done in the course of the employment.

Facts- HMT, a public sector undertaking, is operating a number bus services for its employees in Bangalore. These buses are quite distinct in their appearance and carry the board "for HMT employees only". M, a villager for neighboring state, was waiting for a regular bus in one of the bus stops in Bangalore. A bus belonging to HMT happened to stop nearby and a number of people got into the bus. M, without realizing that it was HMT bus, got into the bus and soon thereafter,the met an accident. M seeks to file against HMT claiming damages.

• M will not succeed because it was for himto find out whether it was a public transport

• M will succeed because the driver was anyhow duty bound to drive carefully

• M will succeed because he got into the bus without realizing that it was HMT bus

• M will succeed because he got into the bus without realizing that it was HMT bus

 A partner shall share with other partners whatever profit he makes in the course of partnership business

P, a partner in a Bangalore firm engaged in textile business, went to a nearby to buy some silk sarees.  The manufacturer therein told him: 'If you buy 500 sarees, you will get a discount of Rs 50 on each saree'. P in fact required only 400 sarees for his firm; nevertheless, he bought 500 sarees and kept 100 sarees for himself. After some time, he owns his own sold 100 sarees and made a good profit. Other partners demanded that he should share these profits with them.

•  P need not share it because he has already benefited the firm by getting a substantial discount in the purchase

• P need not share the profit because his additional buying of100 sarees was to get the discount and help the firm

•  P has to share the profits because he bought those 100 sarees in the course of partnership business

• none of the above

90.

 Under Indian Constitution, every day shall equal before the law. The Income Tax Act happens to provide that those whose annual income up to Rs. 60, 000/- shall pay 10% of their income as a tax; and those whose annual income exceeds Rs. 60, 000/- shall pay the tax at the rate of 20%.Those citizens whose annual income exceeds  Rs. 60 000/- challenged this legislation on the ground that it is a violation of the principle of equality before the law.

c.t

• they shall succeed because the law discriminates against the people who earn more than Rs. 60, 000/- per annum

• they will not succeed because this law enables the Government to equalize the incomes of all the people in the country

• hey will not succeed as there is no violation of equality before law

• hey will not succeed as there is no violation of equality before law