Multiple Choice QuestionsPrinciple : A person is said to shot the doing of a thing when he investigates any other person to do that thing. Mere acquiescence, however, does not amount to instigation.
Facts: 'A' says to 'B', "I am going to kill 'C. And, 'B' replies: 'Do as you wish and take the conse- quences; thereafter' A' kills' C.
Rules (For Questions 1 to 5)
A. The fundamental right to freedom of association includes the right to form an association as well as not join an association.
B. The fundamental right to freedom of association also includes the freedom to decide with whom to associate.
C. The fundamental right to freedom of association does not extend to the right to realize the objectives of forming the association.
D. Fundamental rights are applicable only to laws made by or administrative actions of the State and do not apply to actions of private persons.
E. Any law in contravention of fundamental rights is unconstitutional and therefore cannot bind any person.
Facts
Gajodhar Pharmaceuticals, a private company, offered an employment contract of two years to Syed Monirul Alam. One of the clauses in the employment contract provided that Syed Monirul Alam must join Gajodhar Mazdoor Singh (GMS), one of the trade unions active in Gajodhar Pharmaceuticals.
Decide which of the following propositions can be most reasonably inferred through the application of the stated legal rules to the facts of this case:
The employment contract offered to Monirul Alam to join GMS is legal as it does not restrict his freedom not to join any association.
The condition requiring Monirul Alam to join GMS cannot bind him as it impinges on his freedom not to join any association.
Syed Monirul Alam cannot claim a fundamental right to freedom of association against Gajodhar Pharmaceuticals and therefore, the contract would bind him even though his freedom of association is restricted.
Syed Monirul Alam cannot claim a fundamental right to freedom of association against Gajodhar Pharmaceuticals and therefore, the contract would bind him even though his freedom of association is restricted.
If Parliament enacts a law which requires every employee to join the largest trade union in their workplace mandating Syed Monirul Alam to join GMS, then:
Such a law would merely govern private action to which fundamental rights do not apply.
Such a law would not curtail any individual’s right to freedom of association.
Neither the employment contract, nor the law of the parliament would be enforceable as they would curtail the freedom of association.
Neither the employment contract, nor the law of the parliament would be enforceable as they would curtail the freedom of association.
If Parliament enacts is law that requires a trade union to open its membership to all the employees, then
Such a law would not infringe any fundamental right to freedom of association.
The law of the parliament would curtail an individual’s right not to join any association.
Such a law would curtail the union members’ right to decide with whom they would like to associate.
Such a law would curtail the union members’ right to decide with whom they would like to associate.
If Parliament enacts a legislation prohibiting strikes by trade unions of employees engaged in pharmaceutical industry, then:
The legislation would not violate the right to freedom of association.
The legislation would curtail the right of trade unions to strike, and therefore violate freedom of association.
Since strike is only one of the objectives with which a trade union is formed, right to strike is not protected by the right to freedom of association.
Since strike is only one of the objectives with which a trade union is formed, right to strike is not protected by the right to freedom of association.
(For Questions 6 to 8)
Rule: Whoever finds an unattended object can keep it unless the true owner claims that object. This does not affect the property owner’s right to the ownership of the property on which the object is found. The right to ownership of a property does not include the right to ownership of unattended objects on that property.
Facts: Elizabeth is the CEO of global management services company in Chennai and is on her way to Ranchi to deliver the convocation address at India’s leading business school on the outskirts of Ranchi. Flying business class on Dolphin Airlines, she is entitled to use the lounge owned by the airline in Chennai Airport while waiting for her flight. She finds a diamond ear-ring on the floor of the lounge and gives it to the staff of Dolphin Airlines expressly stating that in the event of nobody claiming the ear-ring within six months, she would claim it back. The airline sell the ear-ring after eight months and Elizabeth files a case to recover the value of the ear- ring from the airline when she is informed about its sale.
As a judge you would order that:
Elizabeth is not entitled to compensation because the ear-ring was found on the property of the airline and therefore, the airline is entitled to sell it.
The airline must compensate Elizabeth because owning the lounge does not give the airline the right over all things that might be found on it.
The airline must compensate Elizabeth because while accepting the ear-ring from Elizabeth they had agreed to return it if nobody claimed it within six months.
The airline must compensate Elizabeth because while accepting the ear-ring from Elizabeth they had agreed to return it if nobody claimed it within six months.
Assume how that Elizabeth was only an economy class passenger and was not entitled to use the airline’s lounge. However, she manages to gain entry and finds the ear-ring in the lounge. The rest of the above facts remain the same. Will her illegal entry into the Lounge affect Elizabeth’s right to keep the ear-ring (or be compensated for its value)?
Yes, the airline claims that Elizabeth’s entry into the lounge was illegal and therefore she has no right over anything she found there
No, because Elizabeth’s class of travel has no bearing on the outcome in this case
Cannot be determined as we need to know how Elizabeth was able to access the airline’s lounge.
Cannot be determined as we need to know how Elizabeth was able to access the airline’s lounge.
B.
No, because Elizabeth’s class of travel has no bearing on the outcome in this case
To the original fact scenario, the following fact is added: In the lounge there are numerous signboards which proclaim ‘Any unattended item will be confiscated by Dolphin Airlines’. In this case, you would:
Order the airline to pay compensation to Elizabeth because the board in the lounge cannot grant property rights over unattended objects to the airline.
Deny Elizabeth compensation because the signboard makes it evident that the airline, as owner of the lounge, is exercising all rights over all unattended items in the lounge and the ear-ring is one such item.
Deny Elizabeth compensation because she knew any unattended item belonged to the airline.
Deny Elizabeth compensation because she knew any unattended item belonged to the airline.
Ajay can be allowed to recover the money only if he can show that:
He was deceived by Bandita who misrepresented her age.
He honestly believed that Bandita was empowered under the law to sell the land.
He was an honest person who had paid the full price of the land to Bandita.
He was an honest person who had paid the full price of the land to Bandita.
Which of the following is correct?
Ajay should be allowed to recover the money because even though there is no contract, Bandita and Chaaru should not be allowed to unjustly benefit from Ajay’s money.
Ajay should be allowed the possession of the land because Chaaru can always decide to approve the transaction between Ajay and Bandita.
Ajay should not be allowed to recover because he induced Bandita, a minor, to sell the land.
Ajay should not be allowed to recover because he induced Bandita, a minor, to sell the land.
Switch
