Assam Judicial Services Prelims Mock Test - 2 - Judiciary Exams MCQ

Thwart means to prevent (someone) from accomplishing something
On her way she meets a cast of New York characters who try to thwart her dreams
This country started by printing worthless currency to thwart the gold standard

Answer:

Option A: never

Explanation:

• My sister usually drives to work with a friend, which means she often has someone with her.
• The sentence says she "_______ drives alone," so we are looking for a word that indicates she rarely or does not drive alone.
• Option A, "never," implies that she does not drive alone at all, which matches the context of the sentence.

Options B and C are grammatically incorrect because the sentence uses ‘were’ which should be accompanied by verb in the ‘-ing’ form while these options do not use the suggested form of verb.
‘Crying wolf’ is contextually incorrect here.
‘Barking up the wrong tree’ will be suitable here as it suggests that the scientists were taking an ineffective course of action in suggesting the preventive methods.
Bark up the wrong tree : to attempt or pursue a futile course of action, often by making some kind of suggestion or request.
Stir up a hornet’s nest : to create, provoke, or trigger a dangerous, troublesome, or complicated situation.
Upset someone’s applecart : to ruin or interfere with one's plans or goals.
Cry wolf : to claim that something is happening when it really isn't.
Correct Sentence :
In the initial months of Covid-19, scientists were sometimes barking up the wrong tree in their recommendation on preventive steps.
Hence, the correct answer is option A. 

The correct answer is 'Madan Mohan Malviya'.

Key Points

• Shri Durgiana Mandir is a Hindu temple situated in the city of Amritsar, Punjab, India.
• It is built in the third decade of the 20th Century.
• One of the greatest reformers and political leaders of resurgent India, Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya, laid its foundation stone.
• Though a Hindu temple, its architecture is similar to the Sikh Harmandir Sahib (Golden Temple).
• Goddess Durga is worshipped in this temple.
• It is a well-known repository of Hindu scriptures.

Additional Information

• Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru
  • Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, laid down the founding principles of Chandigarh.
  • The famous French architect Le Corbusier converted Nehru’s dream into reality.
• Lala Lajpat Rai
  • ​He was popularly known as Punjab Kesari.
  • The great freedom fighter established Punjab National Bank in 1894 as the first 'swadeshi' bank after being influenced by the swadeshi movement.
• Gopal Krishna Gokhale
  • He laid the groundwork for bills at the state level, beginning with the Punjab Primary Education Act in 1919.
  • Through his bills, Gokhale attempted to introduce free and compulsory education.

The logic followed is:

It is given that Rajat has 64% marks in 10th, an age of 27 years, and work experience of 5 years.

It is clearly mentioned in the criteria that 10th marks should be greater than 60% for job Quality check Engineer and greater than 65% for job Software Engineer.

Rajat got 64% marks in 10th and has work experience of 5 years.

Therefore, Rajat qualifies for the job of Quality check Engineer.

Hence, the correct answer is "Quality check Engineer".

Following the common explanation, we get “C is the immediate neighbor of X”.
Hence, option D is correct.
Final Arrangement:

Common Explanation:
References:
1. Two people are sitting between A and Z.
2. C sits fourth to the right of Z.
3. The number of people sitting to the right of A is the same as the number of people sitting to the left of Z.
4. The number of people sitting between A and C is the same as the number of people sitting between X and C.
5. X is an immediate neighbour of D, who sits on one of the ends.
6. The number of people sitting between D and C is the same as the number of people sitting between C and Y.
7. At most 25 people are sitting in a row.
Inferences:
From reference 1, we get two possible cases.
From reference 7, case2 was eliminated.
Hence, Case 1 is the final arrangement.

Checking Statement I:

Using the above references, we get the following arrangement:

Clearly, D was born in July.

Hence data in statement I is sufficient to answer the question.

Checking Statement II:

Using the above references, we get the following arrangement:

Clearly, D was born in July.

Hence data in statement II is sufficient to answer the question.

Here, the data in either Statement I or II alone is sufficient to answer the question.

Hence, Option C is correct.

The correct answer is Option 3.

Key Points

• Section 23 of the Limitation Act addresses situations where an act does not immediately give rise to a cause of action, but only does so when a specific injury resulting from the act occurs.
• Specific Injury Requirement:
  • The act in question must result in a specific injury for a cause of action to arise.
• Period of Limitation:
  • The period of limitation for filing a suit for compensation begins from the time when the injury resulting from the act actually occurs, not from the time when the act causing the injury took place.
• Example:
  • For instance, if exposure to a harmful substance eventually leads to illness, the period of limitation for filing a suit for compensation would begin from the time when the illness resulting from the exposure actually occurs, not from the time when the exposure happened.

According to Sir John Salmond, tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is common law action for unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively the breach of contract or the breach of trust or other merely equitable obligation. Sir John William Salmond KC was a legal scholar, public servant and judge in New Zealand. His book The Law of Torts (1907) for which Harvard University in 1911 awarded him the James Barr Ames Prize for the best legal treatise published in the world over a period of five years.

Joint tortfeasors are those persons who cause the same damage in furtherance of a common design. Joint tortfeasors are those who have mentally combined together for the same purpose. To be considered joint tortfeasors, the parties must act together in committing the wrong, or their acts, if independent of each other, must unite in causing a single injury.

The Supreme Court affirmed its view in Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India while dismissing the petition challenging the provision, under section 497 IPC, which created the offence of adultery as unconstitutional, The Court held that 'Section 497 of IPC cannot be said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution on the grounds that it makes an irrational classification between men and women'.

Option (1) is incorrect: Assault is when a person makes any gesture, or any preparation intending that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person.
Option (2) is incorrect: Mischief is when a person knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously.
Option (3) is incorrect: It is not an offence of any type.
Option (4) is correct: Criminal force is when a person intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or to cause, injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used.

The Constitution (Ninety Seventh Amendment) Act 2011 relating to the cooperatives is aimed to encourage economic activities of cooperatives which in turn help progress of rural India. It is expected to not only ensure autonomous and democratic functioning of cooperatives, but also the accountability of the management to the members and other stakeholders.
97^th Amendment Act, 2011: In Part III of the Constitution, after words "or unions" the words "Cooperative Societies" were added.

Section 26 of Indian Evidence Act provides that no confession made by an accused to any person while in custody of a police officer shall be proved against him unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Thus, the section is intended to prevent of coercive method of extorting confession.

Section 9A of the Civil Procedure Code provides that where at the hearing of an application relating to interim relief in a suit, objection to jurisdiction is taken, such issue is to be decided by the court as a preliminary issue. Notwithstanding anything contained in this code or any other law for the time being in force, if, at the hearing of any application for granting or setting aside an order granting any interim relief, whether by way of stay, injunction, appointment of a receiver or otherwise, made in any suit, an objection to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain such a suit is taken by any of the parties to the suit, the court shall proceed to determine at the hearing of such application the issue as to the jurisdiction as a preliminary issue before granting or setting aside the order granting the interim relief. Any such application shall be heard and disposed of by the court as expeditiously as possible and shall not in any case be adjourned to the hearing of the suit.

Section 13 reads as follows.
In computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit or appeal in any case where an application for leave to sue or appeal as a pauper has been made and rejected, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting in good faith his application for such leave shall be excluded and court may, on payment of court-fees prescribed for such suit or appeal, treat the suit or appeal as having the same force and effect as if court-fees had been paid in the first instance.

Validity of a foreign judgement can be challenged under Section 13 of the CPC in a civil court only, i.e. in the court of District Judge.
The criminal court has no jurisdiction to challenge the validity of a foreign judgement.

Direct Evidence: Evidence in the form of testimony from a witness who actually saw, heard, or touched the subject of questioning. Evidence that, if believed, proves existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption. The means of proof which tend to show the existence of a fact in question, without the intervention of the proof of any other fact.

Necessity Rule as to admissibility of evidence is provided in Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Necessity rule as to admissibility of evidence is applicable when the maker of a statement
1. is dead or has become incapable of giving evidence
2. is a person who can be found but his attendance cannot be procured without unreasonable delay or expenses
3. is a person who cannot be found

The correct answer is Option 3. 

Key Points

• Section 27 of the Limitation Act states that when the limited period for initiating a suit for possession of any property expires without the person taking legal action, their right to the property is extinguished.
• Limited Period for Instituting a Suit:
  • There is a specific time limit within which a person must file a lawsuit to claim possession of a property.
• Extinguishment of Right:
  • If the person fails to file the suit within the prescribed time limit, their right to the property is extinguished.
• Consequence:
  • Once the period expires, the person loses their legal right to claim possession of the property through a lawsuit.
• Section 27 of the Limitation Act ensures that individuals cannot indefinitely delay or avoid legal action to claim possession of a property by setting a time limit within which they must initiate the suit, failing which their right to the property is lost.

Some hearsay statements may still be admitted in court, but only if the person who made the original statement cannot testify for some reason. If that person can testify, he must do so, or the statement cannot be used in court. These exceptions include dying declarations. Dying declaration means a written or verbal statement of relevant facts made by the person who is about to die or is dead. It is the statement of a person who knew the cause of his death or the circumstances of his death. Many courts will not accept these statements in criminal cases, but may still allow them in civil cases.

Option (1) is incorrect: It is not a right in rem.
Option (2) is correct: Obligation under Specific Relief Act is a right in person
parties of suit.
Option (3) is incorrect: Only (2)
Option (4) is incorrect: Only (2)

In the guise of making a rule the Bar Council of India is virtually introducing an additional clause in Section 24 of the Act prescribing an upper age ceiling of completed age of 45 years beyond which no person shall be eligible for enrolment as an advocate or is inserting an additional clause in Section 24A of the Act prescribing a disqualification. The Bar Council of India Rule, which stipulated that persons aged 45 years and above could not be enrolled as advocates, was struck down by the Supreme Court in Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advise v. Bar Council of India.