Legal Mock Test - 15


40 Questions MCQ Test Mock Test Series for CLAT 2020 | Legal Mock Test - 15


Description
This mock test of Legal Mock Test - 15 for CLAT helps you for every CLAT entrance exam. This contains 40 Multiple Choice Questions for CLAT Legal Mock Test - 15 (mcq) to study with solutions a complete question bank. The solved questions answers in this Legal Mock Test - 15 quiz give you a good mix of easy questions and tough questions. CLAT students definitely take this Legal Mock Test - 15 exercise for a better result in the exam. You can find other Legal Mock Test - 15 extra questions, long questions & short questions for CLAT on EduRev as well by searching above.
QUESTION: 1

Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsound state of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or something that he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.
Fact: X takes his son Y who is three years old, for bathing to the well. He throws his son inside the well so that the son can have a good bath. After 10 minutes he also jumps into the well to take bath and get his son out of the well. Both were rescued by the villagers but his son was found dead.

Solution:

It is not shown that the father was of unsound mind and he is aware of the nature of act, although whatever he did cannot be expected from a normal human being. He threw child in water for bathing which ultimately cause his death.

QUESTION: 2

Principle: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any property out of the possession of another person, moves that property for such taking, is said to commit theft.
Facts: Suresh went into the house of his friend Ramesh to discuss some important matter. Since Ramesh was not at home, Suresh waited for him in the latter's drawing room. When Ramesh did not turn up, Suresh took out a pen from Ramesh's table and wrote down a message and went home. While going back, by force of habit, he just dropped the pen into the pocket. Subsequently, he forgot about it. Since the pen happened to be very valuable one, Ramesh complained to the police and the police traced the pen in Suresh's house. Is Suresh liable for theft? (NLSIU-1994)

Solution:

Dishonest intention is clearly absent from the Act of Suresh. Without Dishonest intention, the act of Theft does not take place. Hence, Suresh is not liable.

QUESTION: 3

Passage: India’s Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 (‘Bill’) starts encouragingly, seeking to protect “the privacy of individuals relating to their personal data”. But by the end, it is clear it is not designed to deliver on the promise. For, even as it rightly requires handlers of data to abide by globally accepted rules — about getting an individual’s consent first — it disappointingly gives wide powers to the Government to dilute any of these provisions for its agencies.   Recently, messaging platform WhatsApp said that some Indian journalists and rights activists were among those spied on using technology made by an Israeli company, which by its own admission only works for government agencies across the world.   Importantly, one of the first to raise a red flag about the Bill’s problematic clauses was Justice B.N. Srikrishna, whose committee’s report forms the basis of the Bill. He has used words such as “Orwellian” and “Big Brother” in reaction to the removal of safeguards against actions of Government agencies. In its report last July, the committee noted that the dangers to privacy originate from state and non-state actors. It, therefore, called for exemptions to be “watertight”, “narrow”, and available for use in “limited circumstances”. It had also recommended that the Government bring in a law for the oversight of intelligence-gathering activities, the means by which non-consensual processing of data takes place. A related concern about the Bill is regarding the constitution of the Data Protection Authority of India (‘DPA’), which is to monitor and enforce the provisions of the Act. It will be headed by a chairperson and have not more than six whole-time members, all of whom are to be selected by a panel filled with Government nominees. This completely disregards the fact that Government agencies are also regulated under the Bill; they are major collectors and processors of data themselves. The sweeping powers the Bill gives to the Government render meaningless the gains from the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India case, which culminated in the recognition that privacy is intrinsic to life and liberty, and therefore a basic right. That idea of privacy is certainly not reflected in the Bill in its current form.   [Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Unfulfilled Promise: On Personal Data Protection Bill, Editorial by The Hindu, December 16, 2019.]

Q. Suppose the Bill provides a test of proportionality in respect of privacy, which is: “the act which infringes privacy must have a legitimate aim and must be the least restrictive way of achieving that aim”. If a journalist is known for her reporting on corruption in Government agencies and the Government chooses to engage a surveillance company to collect messages exchanged by her on WhatsApp, in order to intimidate her, does it meet the test of proportionality?

Solution:

No; conducting surveillance on a journalist to intimidate her is not a legitimate aim. This is because it provides a correct explanation for why the Government’s actions fail the test of proportionality as stated above. The test of proportionality requires that an act that infringes privacy must have a legitimate aim. Conducting surveillance on a journalist in order to intimidate her cannot be a legitimate aim.

QUESTION: 4

Passage: India’s Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 (‘Bill’) starts encouragingly, seeking to protect “the privacy of individuals relating to their personal data”. But by the end, it is clear it is not designed to deliver on the promise. For, even as it rightly requires handlers of data to abide by globally accepted rules — about getting an individual’s consent first — it disappointingly gives wide powers to the Government to dilute any of these provisions for its agencies.   Recently, messaging platform WhatsApp said that some Indian journalists and rights activists were among those spied on using technology made by an Israeli company, which by its own admission only works for government agencies across the world.   Importantly, one of the first to raise a red flag about the Bill’s problematic clauses was Justice B.N. Srikrishna, whose committee’s report forms the basis of the Bill. He has used words such as “Orwellian” and “Big Brother” in reaction to the removal of safeguards against actions of Government agencies. In its report last July, the committee noted that the dangers to privacy originate from state and non-state actors. It, therefore, called for exemptions to be “watertight”, “narrow”, and available for use in “limited circumstances”. It had also recommended that the Government bring in a law for the oversight of intelligence-gathering activities, the means by which non-consensual processing of data takes place. A related concern about the Bill is regarding the constitution of the Data Protection Authority of India (‘DPA’), which is to monitor and enforce the provisions of the Act. It will be headed by a chairperson and have not more than six whole-time members, all of whom are to be selected by a panel filled with Government nominees. This completely disregards the fact that Government agencies are also regulated under the Bill; they are major collectors and processors of data themselves. The sweeping powers the Bill gives to the Government render meaningless the gains from the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India case, which culminated in the recognition that privacy is intrinsic to life and liberty, and therefore a basic right. That idea of privacy is certainly not reflected in the Bill in its current form.   

Q. The author is concerned about the constitution of the DPA under the Bill because:

Solution:

The author believes that if the members of DPA are elected by Government nominees, the DPA will be ineffective in regulating Government agencies. This is because the author’s concern regarding the constitution of the DPA under the Bill relates to the fact that the members of the DPA are to be elected by a panel comprising mainly Government nominees and the author doubts the ability of a body constituted of Government appointees to, in turn, regulate the actions of the Government agencies.  

QUESTION: 5

Passage: India’s Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 (‘Bill’) starts encouragingly, seeking to protect “the privacy of individuals relating to their personal data”. But by the end, it is clear it is not designed to deliver on the promise. For, even as it rightly requires handlers of data to abide by globally accepted rules — about getting an individual’s consent first — it disappointingly gives wide powers to the Government to dilute any of these provisions for its agencies.   Recently, messaging platform WhatsApp said that some Indian journalists and rights activists were among those spied on using technology made by an Israeli company, which by its own admission only works for government agencies across the world.   Importantly, one of the first to raise a red flag about the Bill’s problematic clauses was Justice B.N. Srikrishna, whose committee’s report forms the basis of the Bill. He has used words such as “Orwellian” and “Big Brother” in reaction to the removal of safeguards against actions of Government agencies. In its report last July, the committee noted that the dangers to privacy originate from state and non-state actors. It, therefore, called for exemptions to be “watertight”, “narrow”, and available for use in “limited circumstances”. It had also recommended that the Government bring in a law for the oversight of intelligence-gathering activities, the means by which non-consensual processing of data takes place. A related concern about the Bill is regarding the constitution of the Data Protection Authority of India (‘DPA’), which is to monitor and enforce the provisions of the Act. It will be headed by a chairperson and have not more than six whole-time members, all of whom are to be selected by a panel filled with Government nominees. This completely disregards the fact that Government agencies are also regulated under the Bill; they are major collectors and processors of data themselves. The sweeping powers the Bill gives to the Government render meaningless the gains from the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India case, which culminated in the recognition that privacy is intrinsic to life and liberty, and therefore a basic right. That idea of privacy is certainly not reflected in the Bill in its current form.   

Q. The Bill is amended, and the Government’s powers to provide exemptions for its agencies are removed. In such a situation, according to the author: 

Solution:

The Bill would deliver on its promise of seeking to protect the privacy of individuals relating to their personal data. This is clear from the first paragraph of the passage, where the author suggests that the wide powers given to the Government are the reason why the Bill does not live up to its promise. Option (b) is directly contradictory to this, and so cannot be the right option. There is nothing in the passage to support either (c) or (d) as the correct option.

QUESTION: 6

Principle: A person commits cheating, when he fraudulently induces another person to deliver the latter's property to him.
Facts: A falsely represented to B, a shop owner that he was an officer from the Sales Tax Department. In the course of going through the vouchers, A expressed his interest to buy, a costly television on installment basis. B readily agreed hoping that he would get a favourable assessment from A regarding his tax liability. A paid the first installment and took the T.V. and disappeared. The police somehow managed to arrest him and sought to prosecute 'A' for cheating. Decide. (NLSIU-2014)

Solution:

Firstly, A falsely impersonated as a Sales Tax officer to buy a television and secondly, he fraudulently induced B to sell that to him. He is liable for cheating.

QUESTION: 7

Principle: A minor is liable for torts committed by him.
Explanation: A minor is not liable for the torts committed by him when there is significant mental element to the tort such as defamation etc
Fact: Tony, a minor, hires a horse from Mr. A for the purpose of riding who expressly mentions that it is not for ‘jumping’. Tony tries to get the horse over a high fence and horse is killed in the process. Mr. A sues Tony.

Solution:

As per principle, Minor is liable. Tony was specifically told by Mr A  that the horse is not for jumping still Tony tried to get the horse over a high fence. The act also does not involve mental element.

QUESTION: 8

Indian Parliament is based on the principle of

Solution:

A bicameral legislature divides the legislators into separate assemblies, chambers, or houses. Bicameralism is distinguished from unicameralism, in which all members deliberate and vote as a single group, and from some legislatures that have three or more separate assemblies, chambers, or houses. The Parliament is composed of the President of India and the houses. It is a bicameral legislature with two houses: the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) and the Lok Sabha (House of the People).

QUESTION: 9

Which Parliamentary Committee in Indian system of democracy is chaired by a member of Opposition Party?

Solution:

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is chaired by leader of opposition and elected members of Parliament, constituted by the Parliament of India, for the auditing of the revenue and the expenditure of the Government of India.

QUESTION: 10

The Constitution names our country as:

Solution:

The Constitution names our country as India, that is Bharat. The first article of the Constitution of India states that "India, that is Bharat, shall be a union of states," implicitly codifying India and Bharat as equally official short names for the Republic of India.

QUESTION: 11

Principle: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking is said to commit theft".
Fact: Kumud went into a jewellery shop with a view to finding a match for her bangle. She selected the bangle which matches with the bangle which she was wearing; and when she saw the price tag, she gave it up. But meanwhile, she inadvertently took the valuable bangle of the shop and left her less valuable bangle in the casket of the valuable bangle. Nobody in the shop noticed it and she discovered it only after reaching home. (NLSIU 2016) State whether Kumud can be prosecuted for theft?

Solution:

Let us see the Principle of theft which states that-- Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person. In this case Kumud had no dishonest intention and it is even written in the facts of the case that she took the bangle inadvertently.

QUESTION: 12

Principle (i): Nuisance means an unlawful interference with a person’s enjoyment of land.
Principle (ii): Public nuisance is an obstruction to the right of public in general.
Principle (iii): Private nuisance is an obstruction to the right of private parties.
Facts: Zafar runs a scrap metal business. His business generates a great amount of metal waste. Dumping it is a really big problem. He sometimes takes an easy way out and dumps it in some nearby place where he thinks nobody will notice. This however backfires sometimes. For example the one time he tried dumping it on the road adjacent to his business, he ended up blocking it partly thereby causing difficulty to people who used that road.

Q. Only if one person was using the road, then will it be public or private nuisance?

Solution:

So long as the place/road is meant for use of public, it would be a public place and it is immaterial whether it is used by a single person or a large number of persons. It would be public nuisance.

QUESTION: 13

When the master is held liable for the wrongful act of his servant, the liability is called

Solution:

When the master is held liable for the wrongful act of his servant, the liability is called wrongful act of his servant, the liability is called. Strict liability.

QUESTION: 14

The law relating to prisoners of war has been codified by

Solution:

The Geneva Conventions are rules that apply only in times of armed conflict and seek to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities; these include the sick and wounded of armed forces on the field, wounded, sick, and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea, prisoners of war, and civilians.

QUESTION: 15

Passage: The Office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a five-judge [2] led by Chief Justice of India [1] declared on Wednesday. The main judgment of the [2] authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said the Supreme Court is a ‘public authority’ and the office of the CJI is part and parcel of the institution. Hence, if the Supreme Court is a public authority, so is the office of the CJI. 
Justice Khanna, who shared his judgment with Chief Justice [1] and Justice Deepak Gupta, observed that “transparency and accountability should go hand-in-hand”. Increased transparency under RTI was no threat to judicial independence, he held. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his separate and concurring opinion, eloquently observed that “judicial independence is not secured by the secrecy of cloistered halls”. The Bench, however, agreed, in one voice, that the right to know under RTI was not absolute. The right to know of a citizen ought to be balanced with the right to privacy of individual judges. Hence, on this aspect, Justice Khanna held that personal information of judges should only be divulged under RTI if such disclosure served the larger public interest.

Q. What is the name of the judge whose name has been replaced with ‘[1]’ in the passage above?

Solution:

The Supreme Court Wednesday said the office of the Chief Justice of India is public office under the Right to Information Act. The unanimous verdict was pronounced by a five-judge bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi.

QUESTION: 16

Passage: The Office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a five-judge [2] led by Chief Justice of India [1] declared on Wednesday. The main judgment of the [2] authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said the Supreme Court is a ‘public authority’ and the office of the CJI is part and parcel of the institution. Hence, if the Supreme Court is a public authority, so is the office of the CJI. 
Justice Khanna, who shared his judgment with Chief Justice [1] and Justice Deepak Gupta, observed that “transparency and accountability should go hand-in-hand”. Increased transparency under RTI was no threat to judicial independence, he held. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his separate and concurring opinion, eloquently observed that “judicial independence is not secured by the secrecy of cloistered halls”. The Bench, however, agreed, in one voice, that the right to know under RTI was not absolute. The right to know of a citizen ought to be balanced with the right to privacy of individual judges. Hence, on this aspect, Justice Khanna held that personal information of judges should only be divulged under RTI if such disclosure served the larger public interest.

Q. The name given to benches of the Supreme Court of India that have at least five judges, who sit “for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of [the] Constitution or for the purpose of hearing any reference under Article 143” has been replaced with ‘[2]’ in the passage above. What is ‘[2]’?

Solution:

Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Sanjiv Khanna were the other members on the five-judge Constitution bench.

QUESTION: 17

Passage: The Office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a five-judge [2] led by Chief Justice of India [1] declared on Wednesday. The main judgment of the [2] authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said the Supreme Court is a ‘public authority’ and the office of the CJI is part and parcel of the institution. Hence, if the Supreme Court is a public authority, so is the office of the CJI. 
Justice Khanna, who shared his judgment with Chief Justice [1] and Justice Deepak Gupta, observed that “transparency and accountability should go hand-in-hand”. Increased transparency under RTI was no threat to judicial independence, he held. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his separate and concurring opinion, eloquently observed that “judicial independence is not secured by the secrecy of cloistered halls”. The Bench, however, agreed, in one voice, that the right to know under RTI was not absolute. The right to know of a citizen ought to be balanced with the right to privacy of individual judges. Hence, on this aspect, Justice Khanna held that personal information of judges should only be divulged under RTI if such disclosure served the larger public interest.

Q. What is the name of the RTI activist whose applications to the Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India, eventually led to the case discussed in the passage above, and who is one of the main parties in the case? 

Solution:

During the Supreme Court hearings earlier, advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for RTI activist Subhash Chandra Aggarwal, who had sought details on judges’ assets, Aggarwal and argued that while the court favoured transparency through its various judgments, it “has not been very forthcoming” in cases relating to transparency within the court.

QUESTION: 18

Passage: The Office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a five-judge [2] led by Chief Justice of India [1] declared on Wednesday. The main judgment of the [2] authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said the Supreme Court is a ‘public authority’ and the office of the CJI is part and parcel of the institution. Hence, if the Supreme Court is a public authority, so is the office of the CJI. 
Justice Khanna, who shared his judgment with Chief Justice [1] and Justice Deepak Gupta, observed that “transparency and accountability should go hand-in-hand”. Increased transparency under RTI was no threat to judicial independence, he held. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his separate and concurring opinion, eloquently observed that “judicial independence is not secured by the secrecy of cloistered halls”. The Bench, however, agreed, in one voice, that the right to know under RTI was not absolute. The right to know of a citizen ought to be balanced with the right to privacy of individual judges. Hence, on this aspect, Justice Khanna held that personal information of judges should only be divulged under RTI if such disclosure served the larger public interest.

Q. Who is the RTI activist and peasant leader who was arrested on December 10, 2019 from Jorhat, Assam under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against the backdrop of large-scale protests against the amendment of the Citizenship Act? 

Solution:

Assam RTI Activist Charged For 'Waging War Against Country' Amid Protest Against Citizenship Act Akhil Gogoi under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. (UAPA) on Saturday, amid protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act in the state.

QUESTION: 19

Passage: The Office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a five-judge [2] led by Chief Justice of India [1] declared on Wednesday. The main judgment of the [2] authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna said the Supreme Court is a ‘public authority’ and the office of the CJI is part and parcel of the institution. Hence, if the Supreme Court is a public authority, so is the office of the CJI. 
Justice Khanna, who shared his judgment with Chief Justice [1] and Justice Deepak Gupta, observed that “transparency and accountability should go hand-in-hand”. Increased transparency under RTI was no threat to judicial independence, he held. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his separate and concurring opinion, eloquently observed that “judicial independence is not secured by the secrecy of cloistered halls”. The Bench, however, agreed, in one voice, that the right to know under RTI was not absolute. The right to know of a citizen ought to be balanced with the right to privacy of individual judges. Hence, on this aspect, Justice Khanna held that personal information of judges should only be divulged under RTI if such disclosure served the larger public interest.

Q. Which amongst the following was the first Indian state to enact a law on the right to information? 

Solution:

Even before the Central legislation was passed, some of the states have introduced their own Right to Information legislation. The first amongst these was Tamil Nadu. The states and the respective years of the enactment of legislations are mentioned below in the Table 1.

QUESTION: 20

Principle: Damage without violation of any legal right does not give rise to a tort.
Facts: Punkita, who owned a mill, had been using water from a rain-fed stream for her mill, for the past 20 years. One fine day, Utkarsh, her neighbour, sunk a well on his land and pumped large quantities of water, thus depriving Punkita of the quantity of water she used to draw. This caused heavy losses to Punkita. Decide.

Solution:

Although act of Uttraksh might have caused loss to Punkita, but she is not entitled to any damages as there is no violation of her legal rights. The  act of Uttrakh is not tortious. None of the option fits according to the facts and principle.

QUESTION: 21

Principle: Whoever delivers to any other person as genuine any counterfeit currency which he knows to be counterfeit currency which he did not know to be counterfeit at the time when he received it is guilty of an offence.
Facts: Mr. Ramachandran is a cashier in a School. One evening his wife returned home from market. While she was counting the remaining money, Mr. Ramachandran noticed counterfeit currency note of Rs. 100. His wife told him that it was given to her by way of change when she gave a Rs. 500 note in the grocery shop by the person at the cash counter. Mr. Ramachandran goes to the same shop with a view to get rid of the counterfeit note. He buys a shaving cream worth Rs. 32.50 and gives the counterfeit note at the cash counter. The cashier inspects the note and realizes that it is counterfeit. He calls the police. 

Solution:

The facts of the case clearly mention that Mr. Ramachandran noticed counterfeit currency note of Rs. 100.  Here, the said principle of the Question is fully applied and he is liable under the law.

QUESTION: 22

When a person is prosecuted for committing a criminal offence, the burden of proof is on

Solution:

When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. (a) A desires a Court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed. A must prove that B has committed the crime.

QUESTION: 23

Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.
Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same. 
Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him. 
Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.
Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.
Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.
Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act. 

Facts – Ojaswi is an old woman who lives alone in the outskirts of the city. Every month, she has to deposit a sum of Rs. 2000 in the nearby branch of the State Bank of Shamirpet. Pranesh, her neighbour, works as a teller at that branch and offers to deposit the money for her. Trustingly, Ojaswi hands him the money at the end of the month and asks him to deposit it in her bank account. Pranesh never gave her a receipt stating that the amount had been deposited, but made false entries in her passbook nonetheless. Six months later, it is brought to her notice that Pranesh has been misappropriating all the money. She wishes to sue the State Bank of Shamirpet and claim damages for her loss. Would the Bank be liable?

Solution:

Parnesh had no authority from the bank to collect money from Mrs O, So the collection of money falls beyond the scope of course of employment. Parnesh offered to deposit money on his own to which she agreed. It was out and out a social arrangement between two wherein the Bank has no role to play. So bank cannot be made liable to pay damages to her.

QUESTION: 24

Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.
Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same. 
Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him. 
Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.
Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.
Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.
Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act. 

Facts – The South Western Railway Board appointed porters to assist passengers in boarding the right trains, as the crowds were large and the railway schedules were packed during the holiday season. Manu, a vagabond traveler had got into the right train bound for Kochi. However, the porter erroneously thought that he had boarded the wrong train and pulled him out and ensured that he takes another train leaving around the same time, which stopped at Kochi, but was actually bound for Kanyakumari. When the tickets were being checked, Manu was caught and fined for ticketless travelling, as the ticket he possessed was for a different train. Manu seeks to claim damages from the South Western Railway Board. Would they be held liable for the porter’s act? 

Solution:

Together with Banerjee, Dean Karlan, Kremer, John A. List, and Sendhil Mullainathan, she has been a driving force in advancing field experiments as an important methodology to discover causal relationships in economics. Together with Banerjee, she wrote Poor Economics and Good Economics for Hard Times, published in April 2011 and November 2019, respectively.

QUESTION: 25

Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.
Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same. 
Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him. 
Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.
Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.
Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.
Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act. 

Facts – Seashell Petroleum Co. has a large number of drivers employed under the Company, who drive petrol tankers and fill up petrol in underground tanks at petrol bunks in various cities. Reuben was one such driver employed by Seashell. One day, while filling up a tank with petrol, Reuben carelessly lights a match, lights his cigarette, and throws the glowing splinter on the floor. A fire starts in the petrol bunk, as a result, and severe damage is caused to life and property. Who should be held liable for this loss? 

Solution:

Michael Kremer Prize motivation: "for their experimental approach to alleviating global poverty."

QUESTION: 26

Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.
Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same. 
Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him. 
Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.
Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.
Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.
Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act. 

Facts – Fast Carz is a company that provides cars for rented use in the city of New Heights. A University in the city was organising a Literary Festival, and had to pick up and drop off eminent guests from the airport, and had hired a car from Zoom Carz for a period of two days. The Company had put up two notices on each of its cars. One of them read that no unauthorized person was allowed to take a lift in the car. The other read that the driver had been told expressly, not to give lifts to unauthorized people. He was only authorized to pick up and drop off persons as instructed by the University. On his way to the airport to pick up Amit Nayar, a famous author, the driver sees a friend on the sidewalk and decides to give him a lift. While driving on the highway to the airport, the driver caused an accident due to rash and negligent driving, and the friend sustained a head injury and was paralysed for life. Who is to be held liable? 

Solution:

Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo, often with Michael Kremer, soon performed similar studies of other issues and in other countries. Their experimental research methods now entirely dominate development economics.

QUESTION: 27

Principle: A person is entitled to exercise self defence by using reasonable force against the source of threat.
Fact: Shaw and his family lived in a large mansion in the countryside. One night, a group of robbers broke open the door of the mansion, and there was a scuffle between the occupants of the house and the robbers. Shaw took his pistol out, loaded it, and fired a shot at one of the intruders. The shot missed the target, but the robbers started retreating and ran away. By this time, several neighbours had gathered outside the gates. Shaw came out of the house in a fit of anger, and shot at the fleeing robbers, who had mingled into the crowd of neighbours by that time. The shot hit Mr. Beagle, and injured him seriously. 

Solution:

Gita Gopinath (born 8 December 1971) is an Indian American economist who has been the Chief Economist of the International Monetary Fund since 2019. In that role she is the Director of IMF's Research Department and the Economic Counsellor of the Fund. Gopinath was appointed as Chief Economist of the International Monetary Fund in October 2018.

QUESTION: 28

Principle: Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said to wrongfully restrain that person.
Explanation: Wrongful restraint means keeping the man out of the place where he wishes to be or has a right to be in.
Facts: Nilav was completely against the practice of untouchability and abhorred anyone who practiced it. He gathered a few of these so called ‘lower castes’ and asked them to stand in front of the vicinity temple. Nilav wanted to prevent the temple priest from performing a religious yatra, from fear of being “polluted”. Can Nilav be held liable for trying to wrongfully restrain the pundit? 

Solution:

To provide a bank account to every poor in the country
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has announced a new financial scheme “Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan” yojana to help the poor open bank accounts which will come bundled with a debit card and life insurance cover. The scheme aims to provide a bank account to every poor in the country, and the account holder will be provided a debit card and a life insurance cover of Rs 1 lakh.

QUESTION: 29

Principle: Whoever voluntarily causes disturbance to any assembly, lawfully engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment upto one year.
Facts: A temple was being used by a particular sect of Hindus. While that sect of Hindus was performing puja, Rudresh, a Hindu from another sect entered the temple and started performing his puja and paying obeisance to the Lord. This miffed the other sect of Hindus who used the temple. They prosecuted him for voluntarily disturbing a lawful religious assembly. Decide.

Solution:

Section II of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides: Every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, and who is ofsound mind, and is not disqualified from contracting Mohiri Bibi v. Dharmodas Ghosh
The case goes back to the year 1903 in which, for the first time, the Privy Council held that a minor’s contract is void-ab-initio that it is void from the beginning.

QUESTION: 30

Principle: No offence is committed by a person who, during that act, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, whether it is wrong or contrary to law; provided that the thing that intoxicated him was administered without his knowledge or against his will.
Facts: Kamath consumed an entire bottle of brandy than his usual drink of vodka. On the way back to his hostel, he tried to strangle his friend. Would Kamath be held liable?

Solution:

Union Minister of Finance & Corporate Affairs Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman.

QUESTION: 31

Principle: Nothing is an offence if it done in the exercise of the right of private defence. 
Explanation: Every person has a right to defend his own body, the body of another, his own property (movable or immovable) or property of any other person from theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass or even from an attempt to commit any of the above offences. 
Facts: Ribhu had gone on a holiday to Calcutta leaving Rohit in charge of his hostel room. When he returned back a day earlier, Rohit mistook Ribhu to be a trespasser and beat him hard on his head with an iron rod. Ribhu collapses on the floor and is admitted in the hospital where he recovers.

Solution:

Krishnamurthy Subramanian. Krishnamurthy Venkata Subramanian (born May 5, 1971) is an Indian economist and the current Chief Economic Adviser to the Government of India (CEA), officially being appointed to the position on 7 December 2018.

QUESTION: 32

Principle 1 – A person abets the doing of a thing when he instigates some person to do a thing or engages with one or more persons conspiring to do that thing, and an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy. 
Principle 2 – Whoever, either prior to or at the time of commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. 
Facts – Kshitij and Aakash are quarrelling, in which Aakash thrashes Kshitij mercilessly. Kshitij is humiliated and vows to take revenge from Aakash. He tells his father that he will kill Aakash. He asks his friend Deekshita to drop him to a discotheque in Shamirpet. Kshitij also purchased a dagger in a shop. His father informed his brother Dhairya but he did not take the matter seriously. After repeated calls, Dhairya reached home but till then, Kshitij had already left with Deekshita. As soon as Kshitij saw Aakash partying at a discotheque with his friends, he walked up to him and slit his throat with the dagger. A police constable was on duty and upon seeing Kshitij commit the act, did not dare stop him as he feared for his own life. When Dhairya reached the discotheque, Aakash was already dead. Dhairya drags the lifeless body of Aakash to his car and whisks him away to an undisclosed location. 

Q. Can Deekshita be prosecuted for abetting to commit an offence? 

Solution:

It is all guided by providing stability to the financial system," said Kumar on the sidelines of an event to mark the listing of SBI Cards and Payment Services Ltd. The fund infusion by SBI was the largest for Yes Bank.

QUESTION: 33

Principle 1 – A person abets the doing of a thing when he instigates some person to do a thing or engages with one or more persons conspiring to do that thing, and an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy. 
Principle 2 – Whoever, either prior to or at the time of commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. 
Facts – Kshitij and Aakash are quarrelling, in which Aakash thrashes Kshitij mercilessly. Kshitij is humiliated and vows to take revenge from Aakash. He tells his father that he will kill Aakash. He asks his friend Deekshita to drop him to a discotheque in Shamirpet. Kshitij also purchased a dagger in a shop. His father informed his brother Dhairya but he did not take the matter seriously. After repeated calls, Dhairya reached home but till then, Kshitij had already left with Deekshita. As soon as Kshitij saw Aakash partying at a discotheque with his friends, he walked up to him and slit his throat with the dagger. A police constable was on duty and upon seeing Kshitij commit the act, did not dare stop him as he feared for his own life. When Dhairya reached the discotheque, Aakash was already dead. Dhairya drags the lifeless body of Aakash to his car and whisks him away to an undisclosed location. 

Q. Whether the policeman on duty can be held guilty for abetment to commit the offence?

Solution:

Founder and former managing director of Yes Bank Rana Kapoor.

QUESTION: 34

Principle 1 – A person abets the doing of a thing when he instigates some person to do a thing or engages with one or more persons conspiring to do that thing, and an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy. 
Principle 2 – Whoever, either prior to or at the time of commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. 
Facts – Kshitij and Aakash are quarrelling, in which Aakash thrashes Kshitij mercilessly. Kshitij is humiliated and vows to take revenge from Aakash. He tells his father that he will kill Aakash. He asks his friend Deekshita to drop him to a discotheque in Shamirpet. Kshitij also purchased a dagger in a shop. His father informed his brother Dhairya but he did not take the matter seriously. After repeated calls, Dhairya reached home but till then, Kshitij had already left with Deekshita. As soon as Kshitij saw Aakash partying at a discotheque with his friends, he walked up to him and slit his throat with the dagger. A police constable was on duty and upon seeing Kshitij commit the act, did not dare stop him as he feared for his own life. When Dhairya reached the discotheque, Aakash was already dead. Dhairya drags the lifeless body of Aakash to his car and whisks him away to an undisclosed location. 

Q. Whether Dhairya is guilty of abetting to commit the offence of slitting Aakash’s throat? 

Solution:

Key people Prashant Kumar MD & CEO YES BANK

QUESTION: 35

Principle: Whoever causes death with the intention of causing death or inflicts injury likely enough to cause death or causes bodily injury sufficient enough to cause death or with the knowledge, commits an act so imminently dangerous that it will cause the death, is said to have committed murder.
Facts: Aditya, a surgeon, resented his wife for not having brought enough dowry. He decides to kill her and pierces the upper portion of her right thigh, cutting an important artery which causes immense blood loss. His wife dies in the process. Aditya was charged with murder. Decide. 

Solution:

Intention is apparently clear. Doctor had decided to kill his wife and  being a skilled person was well aware that cutting artery at such part of body would cause death in all probability. 

QUESTION: 36

The President issued an order well under his powers and under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. If instead of the promulgation of the order, the Parliament would have removed Article 370 from the Indian Constitution, what would have been the consequence?

Solution:

The independant status of J and K is because of the existence of article 370.If  it is removed  J and K will obviously be independent state. The law will fail or the Supreme Court would hold it unconstitutional only if it is challenged. 

QUESTION: 37

Legal Principle: The notice for auction or sale of goods is only an invitation to offer, and not an offer in itself under the law of contract.
Facts of the Problem: Uday puts up an advertisement in front of his house of selling the house at the price of Rs. 50 lakhs. Saif sees that advertisement and goes to Uday with the money to buy the house. Uday refuses to sell the house to Saif. Saif sues Uday for the breach of the contract. Decide?

Solution:

In the instant case, the advertisement for the sale of the house by Udau was not an offer to the contract. It was merely an invitation to sell. The legal position is that the notice for auction or sale of goods is only an invitation to offer, and not an offer in itself under the law of contract. Thus, no contract as made between Saif and Uday for the sale of the house and consequently, no question of awarding any damages for the breach of the contract arises.

QUESTION: 38

Principle: Mere promise without a proper follow-up does not create a binding legal obligation.
Saurav planned construction of a marriage hall and to make it available for the use of all sections of Society, at nominal rates. Gaurav, a rich philanthropist in the area, assured him financial help to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000, Relying on the assurance, Saurav raised a loan and constructed the marriage hall Gaurav did not pay the assured sum. Gaurav was not informed that Saurav had started the construction work, solely relying on his assurance.

Solution:

Gaurav has given assurance for certain sum of money but thereafter, the matter was silent. There was no follow up. Guarav was not even put into knowledge of acts done by Saurav. Therefore, Gaurav will not succeed.

QUESTION: 39

Nitin started to drive his Tata Nano in the highway after gulping down two bottles of whiskey. Isaac was driving his Reva NXR with the headlights turned off. They collided resulting in an injury on Isaac’s head. Nitin, who was highly intoxicated, had only a narrow chance to avoid the collision, but because of the high levels of alcohol in his blood, he was unable to do so. Isaac sued Nitin for negligence. Will he succeed?
Principle: A person is liable for the tort of negligence if he breaches a legal duty of care he owes to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff suffered a damage resulting from this breach.

Solution:

Nitin was highly intoxicated due to which he could not avoid the accident. He was negligent in not taking care while driving in drunken state. He owes a duty to take care of everyone including Issac.

QUESTION: 40

What is the meaning of the Legal Maxim/ Legal Word/Legal Term “Bona vacantia”?

Solution:

Bona vacantia, or “vacant goods” in Latin, is a legal term for the situation in which property is left without any clear owner. The precise handling of such property varies depending on the jurisdiction. In most cases, the property is held by the government, and may be recovered by rightful owners or heirs.

Related tests