Legal Principle: Justice should not only be done, but also seen to be done.Facts: L, an honest Lawyer had 200 shares in Company X. Later, L was elevated to the High Court as a Judge and had to deal with Company matters. A dispute between Company X and its creditors came before L for decision. Which among the following proposition is true?Options:a)L, as an honest person will definitely judge the matter on the merits only. So, the principle cannot apply.b)A judge cannot excuse himself from taking up a case posted before him by the Court Registry.c)L should refrain from hearing the matter as he holds shares of the Company X.d)Since, L has only 200 shares he has no substantial interest in the company and hence can decide the matter.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Legal Principle: Justice should not only be d...

Legal Principle: Justice should not only be done, but also seen to be done.

Facts: L, an honest Lawyer had 200 shares in Company X. Later, L was elevated to the High Court as a Judge and had to deal with Company matters. A dispute between Company X and its creditors came before L for decision. Which among the following proposition is true?
Options:

a)
L, as an honest person will definitely judge the matter on the merits only. So, the principle cannot apply.
b)
A judge cannot excuse himself from taking up a case posted before him by the Court Registry.
c)
L should refrain from hearing the matter as he holds shares of the Company X.
d)
Since, L has only 200 shares he has no substantial interest in the company and hence can decide the matter.

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Legal Principle: Justice should not only be done, but also seen to be ...

Legal Principle: Justice should not only be done, but also seen to be done.Facts:- L, an honest Lawyer had 200 shares in Company X.- L was elevated to the High Court as a Judge and had to deal with Company matters.- A dispute between Company X and its creditors came before L for decision.True Proposition:C: L should refrain from hearing the matter as he holds shares of Company X.Explanation:The legal principle states that justice should not only be done, but also seen to be done. This means that not only should the decision be fair and just, but it should also be perceived as fair and just by the public.In this case, L, who was previously a lawyer and had 200 shares in Company X, has now been elevated to the High Court as a Judge. The dispute between Company X and its creditors comes before L for decision.Option A: L, as an honest person will definitely judge the matter on the merits only. So, the principle cannot apply.- This option is not true because the principle of justice being seen to be done still applies, regardless of L's honesty.Option B: A judge cannot excuse himself from taking up a case posted before him by the Court Registry.- This option is not true because a judge can indeed excuse himself or herself from taking up a case under certain circumstances, such as when there is a conflict of interest.Option C: L should refrain from hearing the matter as he holds shares of Company X.- This option is true. As L holds shares in Company X, there is a clear conflict of interest. It is important for a judge to avoid any appearance of bias or partiality, and holding shares in a company involved in a dispute before the court raises concerns about impartiality.Option D: Since L has only 200 shares, he has no substantial interest in the company and hence can decide the matter.- This option is not true. Even though L may only have 200 shares, it is still a conflict of interest and raises concerns about impartiality.Therefore, the true proposition is that L should refrain from hearing the matter as he holds shares in Company X. By doing so, justice will not only be done, but it will also be seen to be done, maintaining public confidence in the judiciary system.

View all questions of this test

Most Upvoted Answer

Legal Principle: Justice should not only be done, but also seen to be ...

This legal principle has its derivation from{ R v Sussex Justices, ex p McCarthy} where a clerk working in court sued McCarthy for rash driving and the decision favored clerk, McCarthy alleged that this judgement is influenced as clerk works in that Institution :Judges completely denied that and later he won the case..so as even brief background :IN GENERAL, JUDGES ALWAYS REFRAIN THEMSELVES FROM THE CASES EVEN IF THEY HAVE SMALLEST RELATION TO THE CASE.
SO, this was a question where brief knowledge was necessary because principle was direct.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

Free Test

FREE

Test: CLAT 2018 Past Year Paper
200 Ques | 120 Min

Start Free Test

View all free CLAT tests

Community Answer

Legal Principle: Justice should not only be done, but also seen to be ...

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Sec. 126 of the Indian Contract Act, defines a contract of guarantee as "A contract to perform the promise, or discharge the liability of a third person in case of his defaults". A guarantee may be either "oral" or "written". Just like any other contracts, it should also fulfill all the essentials of a valid contract. As stated already, three parties are involved in a contract of guarantee.All the three parties namely, the principal debtor, the creditor and the surety must agree to make such a contract. A contract of guarantee pre-supposes the existence of a liability, which is enforceable at law. If no such liability exists, there can be no contract of guarantee. Thus, where the debt, which is sought to be guaranteed, is already time barred or void, the surety is not liable. There must be consideration between the creditor and the surety so as to make the contract enforceable. The consideration must also be lawful. In a contract of guarantee, the consideration received by the principal debtor is taken to be the sufficient consideration for the surety. Thus, any benefit received by the debtor is adequate consideration to bind the surety. But past consideration is no consideration for a contract of guarantee. There must be a fresh consideration moving from the creditor. A contract of guarantee may either be oral or written. In a contract of guarantee, liability of the surety is secondary, i.e. the creditor must first proceed against the debtor and if the latter does not perform his promise, then only he can proceed against the surety. It may be express or implied from the conduct of parties. The creditor should disclose to the surety the facts that are likely to affect the suretys liability. The guarantee obtained by the concealment of such facts is invalid. Thus, the guarantee is invalid if the creditor obtains it by the concealment of material facts The guarantee should not be obtained by misrepresenting the facts to the surety. Though the contract of guarantee is not a contract of uberrimae fidei, i.e. of absolute good faith, and thus, does not require complete disclosure of all the material facts by the principal debtor or creditor to the surety before he enters into a contract. But the facts, that are likely to affect the extent of suretys responsibility, must be truly represented.Q.Anjan supplies goods to Neel on Lavins guarantee that he will pay if Neel defaults and he provides guarantee orally. He agreed to sign a contract later on. Neel made a default on payment. Having not signed the contract of guarantee, Lavin wanted to wriggle out of the situation. He said he didnt stand as a guarantor. Decide.

View answer

The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Sec. 126 of the Indian Contract Act, defines a contract of guarantee as "A contract to perform the promise, or discharge the liability of a third person in case of his defaults". A guarantee may be either "oral" or "written". Just like any other contracts, it should also fulfill all the essentials of a valid contract. As stated already, three parties are involved in a contract of guarantee.All the three parties namely, the principal debtor, the creditor and the surety must agree to make such a contract. A contract of guarantee pre-supposes the existence of a liability, which is enforceable at law. If no such liability exists, there can be no contract of guarantee. Thus, where the debt, which is sought to be guaranteed, is already time barred or void, the surety is not liable. There must be consideration between the creditor and the surety so as to make the contract enforceable. The consideration must also be lawful. In a contract of guarantee, the consideration received by the principal debtor is taken to be the sufficient consideration for the surety. Thus, any benefit received by the debtor is adequate consideration to bind the surety. But past consideration is no consideration for a contract of guarantee. There must be a fresh consideration moving from the creditor. A contract of guarantee may either be oral or written. In a contract of guarantee, liability of the surety is secondary, i.e. the creditor must first proceed against the debtor and if the latter does not perform his promise, then only he can proceed against the surety. It may be express or implied from the conduct of parties. The creditor should disclose to the surety the facts that are likely to affect the suretys liability. The guarantee obtained by the concealment of such facts is invalid. Thus, the guarantee is invalid if the creditor obtains it by the concealment of material facts The guarantee should not be obtained by misrepresenting the facts to the surety. Though the contract of guarantee is not a contract of uberrimae fidei, i.e. of absolute good faith, and thus, does not require complete disclosure of all the material facts by the principal debtor or creditor to the surety before he enters into a contract. But the facts, that are likely to affect the extent of suretys responsibility, must be truly represented.Q.Chetan lends money to Ashu. Chetan while signing the contract asks Ashu if she has a guarantor. Ashu without any intimation to Anuj gave his name as the guarantor. Ashu later on convinced Anuj to be the guarantor, but upon Ashus default, Anuj refused to pay. Decide.

View answer

The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Sec. 126 of the Indian Contract Act, defines a contract of guarantee as "A contract to perform the promise, or discharge the liability of a third person in case of his defaults". A guarantee may be either "oral" or "written". Just like any other contracts, it should also fulfill all the essentials of a valid contract. As stated already, three parties are involved in a contract of guarantee.All the three parties namely, the principal debtor, the creditor and the surety must agree to make such a contract. A contract of guarantee pre-supposes the existence of a liability, which is enforceable at law. If no such liability exists, there can be no contract of guarantee. Thus, where the debt, which is sought to be guaranteed, is already time barred or void, the surety is not liable. There must be consideration between the creditor and the surety so as to make the contract enforceable. The consideration must also be lawful. In a contract of guarantee, the consideration received by the principal debtor is taken to be the sufficient consideration for the surety. Thus, any benefit received by the debtor is adequate consideration to bind the surety. But past consideration is no consideration for a contract of guarantee. There must be a fresh consideration moving from the creditor. A contract of guarantee may either be oral or written. In a contract of guarantee, liability of the surety is secondary, i.e. the creditor must first proceed against the debtor and if the latter does not perform his promise, then only he can proceed against the surety. It may be express or implied from the conduct of parties. The creditor should disclose to the surety the facts that are likely to affect the suretys liability. The guarantee obtained by the concealment of such facts is invalid. Thus, the guarantee is invalid if the creditor obtains it by the concealment of material facts The guarantee should not be obtained by misrepresenting the facts to the surety. Though the contract of guarantee is not a contract of uberrimae fidei, i.e. of absolute good faith, and thus, does not require complete disclosure of all the material facts by the principal debtor or creditor to the surety before he enters into a contract. But the facts, that are likely to affect the extent of suretys responsibility, must be truly represented.Q.Chetna advances loan of Rs 1 lakh to Chitra. Palak, boss of Chitra, promises that in case Chitra fails to repay the loan, she will repay the same. Chitra fails to repay the loan upon being declared bankrupt. Chetna filed a case against Palak for default. Decide.

View answer

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) enacted on May 28, 2016, against the backdrop of mounting non-performing loans, with a view to establishing a consolidated framework for insolvency resolution of corporations, partnership firms and individuals in a time-bound manner, seeks to tackle the non-performing asset (NP

View answer

The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Sec. 126 of the Indian Contract Act, defines a contract of guarantee as "A contract to perform the promise, or discharge the liability of a third person in case of his defaults". A guarantee may be either "oral" or "written". Just like any other contracts, it should also fulfill all the essentials of a valid contract. As stated already, three parties are involved in a contract of guarantee.All the three parties namely, the principal debtor, the creditor and the surety must agree to make such a contract. A contract of guarantee pre-supposes the existence of a liability, which is enforceable at law. If no such liability exists, there can be no contract of guarantee. Thus, where the debt, which is sought to be guaranteed, is already time barred or void, the surety is not liable. There must be consideration between the creditor and the surety so as to make the contract enforceable. The consideration must also be lawful. In a contract of guarantee, the consideration received by the principal debtor is taken to be the sufficient consideration for the surety. Thus, any benefit received by the debtor is adequate consideration to bind the surety. But past consideration is no consideration for a contract of guarantee. There must be a fresh consideration moving from the creditor. A contract of guarantee may either be oral or written. In a contract of guarantee, liability of the surety is secondary, i.e. the creditor must first proceed against the debtor and if the latter does not perform his promise, then only he can proceed against the surety. It may be express or implied from the conduct of parties. The creditor should disclose to the surety the facts that are likely to affect the suretys liability. The guarantee obtained by the concealment of such facts is invalid. Thus, the guarantee is invalid if the creditor obtains it by the concealment of material facts The guarantee should not be obtained by misrepresenting the facts to the surety. Though the contract of guarantee is not a contract of uberrimae fidei, i.e. of absolute good faith, and thus, does not require complete disclosure of all the material facts by the principal debtor or creditor to the surety before he enters into a contract. But the facts, that are likely to affect the extent of suretys responsibility, must be truly represented.Q.BHK Pvt Ltd. gave notice to Pooja, the debtor-defendant and also threatened legal action against her, but her husband agreed to become surety and undertook to pay the liability and also executed a promissory note in their favor. The Bank refrained from threatened action. Decide.

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Legal Principle: Justice should not only be done, but also seen to be done.Facts: L, an honest Lawyer had 200 shares in Company X. Later, L was elevated to the High Court as a Judge and had to deal with Company matters. A dispute between Company X and its creditors came before L for decision. Which among the following proposition is true?Options:a)L, as an honest person will definitely judge the matter on the merits only. So, the principle cannot apply.b)A judge cannot excuse himself from taking up a case posted before him by the Court Registry.c)L should refrain from hearing the matter as he holds shares of the Company X.d)Since, L has only 200 shares he has no substantial interest in the company and hence can decide the matter.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Legal Principle: Justice should not only be done, but also seen to be done.Facts: L, an honest Lawyer had 200 shares in Company X. Later, L was elevated to the High Court as a Judge and had to deal with Company matters. A dispute between Company X and its creditors came before L for decision. Which among the following proposition is true?Options:a)L, as an honest person will definitely judge the matter on the merits only. So, the principle cannot apply.b)A judge cannot excuse himself from taking up a case posted before him by the Court Registry.c)L should refrain from hearing the matter as he holds shares of the Company X.d)Since, L has only 200 shares he has no substantial interest in the company and hence can decide the matter.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Legal Principle: Justice should not only be done, but also seen to be done.Facts: L, an honest Lawyer had 200 shares in Company X. Later, L was elevated to the High Court as a Judge and had to deal with Company matters. A dispute between Company X and its creditors came before L for decision. Which among the following proposition is true?Options:a)L, as an honest person will definitely judge the matter on the merits only. So, the principle cannot apply.b)A judge cannot excuse himself from taking up a case posted before him by the Court Registry.c)L should refrain from hearing the matter as he holds shares of the Company X.d)Since, L has only 200 shares he has no substantial interest in the company and hence can decide the matter.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Legal Principle: Justice should not only be done, but also seen to be done.Facts: L, an honest Lawyer had 200 shares in Company X. Later, L was elevated to the High Court as a Judge and had to deal with Company matters. A dispute between Company X and its creditors came before L for decision. Which among the following proposition is true?Options:a)L, as an honest person will definitely judge the matter on the merits only. So, the principle cannot apply.b)A judge cannot excuse himself from taking up a case posted before him by the Court Registry.c)L should refrain from hearing the matter as he holds shares of the Company X.d)Since, L has only 200 shares he has no substantial interest in the company and hence can decide the matter.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Legal Principle: Justice should not only be done, but also seen to be done.Facts: L, an honest Lawyer had 200 shares in Company X. Later, L was elevated to the High Court as a Judge and had to deal with Company matters. A dispute between Company X and its creditors came before L for decision. Which among the following proposition is true?Options:a)L, as an honest person will definitely judge the matter on the merits only. So, the principle cannot apply.b)A judge cannot excuse himself from taking up a case posted before him by the Court Registry.c)L should refrain from hearing the matter as he holds shares of the Company X.d)Since, L has only 200 shares he has no substantial interest in the company and hence can decide the matter.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Legal Principle: Justice should not only be done, but also seen to be done.Facts: L, an honest Lawyer had 200 shares in Company X. Later, L was elevated to the High Court as a Judge and had to deal with Company matters. A dispute between Company X and its creditors came before L for decision. Which among the following proposition is true?Options:a)L, as an honest person will definitely judge the matter on the merits only. So, the principle cannot apply.b)A judge cannot excuse himself from taking up a case posted before him by the Court Registry.c)L should refrain from hearing the matter as he holds shares of the Company X.d)Since, L has only 200 shares he has no substantial interest in the company and hence can decide the matter.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Legal Principle: Justice should not only be done, but also seen to be done.Facts: L, an honest Lawyer had 200 shares in Company X. Later, L was elevated to the High Court as a Judge and had to deal with Company matters. A dispute between Company X and its creditors came before L for decision. Which among the following proposition is true?Options:a)L, as an honest person will definitely judge the matter on the merits only. So, the principle cannot apply.b)A judge cannot excuse himself from taking up a case posted before him by the Court Registry.c)L should refrain from hearing the matter as he holds shares of the Company X.d)Since, L has only 200 shares he has no substantial interest in the company and hence can decide the matter.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Legal Principle: Justice should not only be done, but also seen to be done.Facts: L, an honest Lawyer had 200 shares in Company X. Later, L was elevated to the High Court as a Judge and had to deal with Company matters. A dispute between Company X and its creditors came before L for decision. Which among the following proposition is true?Options:a)L, as an honest person will definitely judge the matter on the merits only. So, the principle cannot apply.b)A judge cannot excuse himself from taking up a case posted before him by the Court Registry.c)L should refrain from hearing the matter as he holds shares of the Company X.d)Since, L has only 200 shares he has no substantial interest in the company and hence can decide the matter.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Legal Principle: Justice should not only be done, but also seen to be done.Facts: L, an honest Lawyer had 200 shares in Company X. Later, L was elevated to the High Court as a Judge and had to deal with Company matters. A dispute between Company X and its creditors came before L for decision. Which among the following proposition is true?Options:a)L, as an honest person will definitely judge the matter on the merits only. So, the principle cannot apply.b)A judge cannot excuse himself from taking up a case posted before him by the Court Registry.c)L should refrain from hearing the matter as he holds shares of the Company X.d)Since, L has only 200 shares he has no substantial interest in the company and hence can decide the matter.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Legal Principle: Justice should not only be done, but also seen to be done.Facts: L, an honest Lawyer had 200 shares in Company X. Later, L was elevated to the High Court as a Judge and had to deal with Company matters. A dispute between Company X and its creditors came before L for decision. Which among the following proposition is true?Options:a)L, as an honest person will definitely judge the matter on the merits only. So, the principle cannot apply.b)A judge cannot excuse himself from taking up a case posted before him by the Court Registry.c)L should refrain from hearing the matter as he holds shares of the Company X.d)Since, L has only 200 shares he has no substantial interest in the company and hence can decide the matter.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam