Multiple Choice Questions

Advertisement

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.


B.

MONU can sue SONU on the ground that he was denied to caste vote, which is a legal right.
65 Views

Advertisement

Select the correct statements on Social Justice Bench constituted on social issue

1. Constituted by Supreme Court on 3 December 2014

2. Started operation on 12 December 2014

3. The brainchild of Chief Justice of India H L Dhattu

4. Two-judge bench to be headed by Justice Madan B Lokur

5. The other member is Justice U Lalit

  • 1, 2 and 5 are correct
  •  1, 2 and 3 are correct
  • 1, 3 and 4 are correct
  • 1, 3 and 4 are correct
52 Views

PRINCIPLE: Any direct physical interference with the goods in somebody’s possession without lawful justification is called trespass to goods.

FACT: A purchased a car from a person who had no little to it and had send it to a garage for repair. X, believing, wrongly, that the car was his, removed it from the garage

  • X can be held responsible for trespass to goods.
  • X cannot be held responsible for trespass to good as he was under a wrong belief.
  • X has not committed any wrong.
  • X has not committed any wrong.
55 Views

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.
63 Views

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.
68 Views

Advertisement

PRINCIPLE: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly and movable property out of the possession on any person without that person’s consent moves that property, such taking is said to commit theft.

FACT: Ramu cuts down a tree on RINKU’s ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of RINKU’s possession without RINKU’s consent. A could not take the tree away.

  • RAMU can be prosecuted for theft
  •  RAMU cannot be prosecuted for theft
  • RAMU can be prosecuted for attempt to theft
  • RAMU can be prosecuted for attempt to theft
74 Views

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
85 Views

 In a recent case a Supreme Court bench comprising of justice Dipak Misra and Justice Parafulla C pant held that the amount of maintenance to be awarded under Section 125 of CrPC cannot be restricted for the ideate period (three months) only as the inherent and fundamental principal behind section 125.

Also, it said that an order under Section 125 CPC can be passed if person, despite having sufficient means, neglects or refuses to maintain the wife.

  • ShamimaFarooqui v. Shahid Khan
  • Mogd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum
  • Hamida Bano v. Abdul Rasheed
  • Hamida Bano v. Abdul Rasheed
60 Views

PRINCIPLE: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid and act or omission which he can foresee would injure his neighbour. The neghbor for this purpose, is any person whom he should have in his mind as likely to be affected by his act.

FACT: Krishnan, while driving a car at high speed in a crowded road, knocked down a cyclist. The cyclist died on the spot with a lot of blood spilling around, Lakshmi, a pregnant woman passing by, suffered from a nervous shock, leading to abortion. Lakshmi filed a suit against Krishnan claiming damages.

  • Krishna will be liable, because he owed a duty of reasonable care to everbody on the road including Lakshmi.
  • Krishna will not be liable, because he could not have foreseen Lakshmi suffering from nervous shock as a result of his act.
  • Krishna will be liable to Lakshmi because he failed to drive carefully.
  • Krishna will be liable to Lakshmi because he failed to drive carefully.
86 Views

Advertisement

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.
81 Views