Legal Principle: When there is an infringement of the legal right of a person, he gets a right to sue the wrongdoer for remedy irrespective of any actual loss caused.Fact Situation: Saroj is prevented from voting at an election. The candidate she intended to vote for, wins the election.Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?Options:a)Sarojandrsquo;s legal right has been violated and she can sue the persons who prevented her from votingb)Since Sarojandlsquo;s candidate has won the election, her rights are not violated and she cannot sue.c)Since Saroj is not the candidate, her rights are not violated if she is prevented from voting.d)This principle is not at all applicable in this case.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Legal Principle: When there is an infringemen...

Legal Principle: When there is an infringement of the legal right of a person, he gets a right to sue the wrongdoer for remedy irrespective of any actual loss caused.

Fact Situation: Saroj is prevented from voting at an election. The candidate she intended to vote for, wins the election.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Options:

a)
Saroj’s legal right has been violated and she can sue the persons who prevented her from voting
b)
Since Saroj‘s candidate has won the election, her rights are not violated and she cannot sue.
c)
Since Saroj is not the candidate, her rights are not violated if she is prevented from voting.
d)
This principle is not at all applicable in this case.

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

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Legal Principle: When there is an infringement of the legal right of a...

By straightway applying the principle Saroj’s legal right (right to vote) has been violated and she can sue the persons who prevented her from voting.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Legal Principle: No remedy lies in law where an injury is caused to a person without any infringement of his legal right.Fact Situation: Ashutosh started a tuition Centre right next to the one being run for the past twenty years by Gulshan. After Ashutosh started his Centre, a large number of students shifted from Gulshan’s tuition Centre to Ashutosh’s Centre forcing Gulshan to close down his establishment suffering huge losses. Can Gulshan initiate legal action against Ashutosh?Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?Options

View answer

Legal Principle: ‘ Audi alteram partem’ is a Latin phrase which means ‘hear the other side’. It is the principle that no person should be judged without a fair hearing.Fact Situation: Sanjay, in Delhi, is accused of theft and brought before the Court. The magistrate discovers that Sanjay is mute.Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above? Options

View answer

Legal Principle: A product cannot be sold in shops to consumers after its date of expiry.Fact Situation: Lata, while shopping, notices that the milk packets on the shelves are due for expiry on that day. She objects to this to the shopkeeper, saying that since she was there to buy milk for the next day, keeping the milk on its date of expiry was against the law.Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?Options

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.Brock Lesnars catchphrase is not unique as it has already been used widely. Hence, even if an action for infringement is instituted in the US courts, no remedy would be available on the ground that the catchphrase does not involve creativity or distinctiveness. Association with a good or service may be dispensed with in this case, as catchphrases have been registered in the U.S. which concern a person.Many catchphrases such as Im Loving It for McDonalds, Just Do It for Nike etc. have been granted trademark protection in India. Although, the position is not clear regarding, trademark on celebrity catchphrases, but decisions by various High Courts can be used to remove the ambiguity. In Reebok India Company v. Gomzi Active, the Karnataka High Court held that in order to claim a phrase as trademark, the person must establish that his distinctive use has developed goodwill and secondary meaning for his product (Para 12 of the Judgement). A similar stance was taken in Raymond Limited v. Radhika Export AndAnr, by the Bombay High Court wherein the need for creative use and considerable acquired goodwill and market reputation to claim trademark protection for catchphrases was stressed upon (Para 11 of the Judgement).Looking at the wide usage of Brock Lesnars catchphrase, registration would surely be refused under the Indian law. Anyhow, currently, there is no registration of the phrase eat, sleep, conquer, repeat in the Indian Trademark Registry and as per Section 27(1) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, infringement litigation cannot lie when the trademark is unregistered. Even if the catchphrase is granted registration, infringement will only take place when the registered trademark is used in the course of trade by another party. In a particular case, Ranveer Singh merely used it on social media which no way comes under the ambit of the term course of trade.Laws for copyright and trademark protection are different. Copyright laws are pretty harsh when it comes to the protection of catchphrases. If tomorrow copyright protection is given to such short phrases then, maybe one day will come wherein no phrases would be there to use. On the other hand, trademark protection for catchphrases seems to be valid. A brand needs to distinguish itself from that of the others, and thus catchphrases need protection. The controversy above would have made more sense if the threat was regarding trademark infringement, but anyhow Ranveer Singhs usage could not amount to infringement whether it is copyright or trademark.Q.Mr. Jack Ryan, who runs his business in the US, got his trademark registered there. Mr. Osama, who runs his business in India, started using a trademark same as that of Mr. Jack Ryan. Now, Mr. Jack Ryan wants to pursue infringement action. Decide.

View answer

Question numbers 1-35 consists of legal proposition(s)/ principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as principl e) and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this Section. In other words, in answering these questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles those are given herein below for every question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability, even if the most reasonable conclusion arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of law.Therefore, to answer a question, principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.Q.Principle: The concept of natural justice is against bias and for the right to a fair hearing. While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, and it has largely been replaced and extended by the general duty to act fairly.Fact: X, a male employee of a company was dismissed by the employer just on the basis of a complaint by Y, a female employee of the company that X was trying to be too friendly with her and often requested her to accompany him to the canteen.Is the dismissal of X valid?

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: When there is an infringement of the legal right of a person, he gets a right to sue the wrongdoer for remedy irrespective of any actual loss caused.Fact Situation: Saroj is prevented from voting at an election. The candidate she intended to vote for, wins the election.Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?Options:a)Saroj’s legal right has been violated and she can sue the persons who prevented her from votingb)Since Saroj‘s candidate has won the election, her rights are not violated and she cannot sue.c)Since Saroj is not the candidate, her rights are not violated if she is prevented from voting.d)This principle is not at all applicable in this case.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Legal Principle: When there is an infringement of the legal right of a person, he gets a right to sue the wrongdoer for remedy irrespective of any actual loss caused.Fact Situation: Saroj is prevented from voting at an election. The candidate she intended to vote for, wins the election.Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?Options:a)Saroj’s legal right has been violated and she can sue the persons who prevented her from votingb)Since Saroj‘s candidate has won the election, her rights are not violated and she cannot sue.c)Since Saroj is not the candidate, her rights are not violated if she is prevented from voting.d)This principle is not at all applicable in this case.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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: When there is an infringement of the legal right of a person, he gets a right to sue the wrongdoer for remedy irrespective of any actual loss caused.Fact Situation: Saroj is prevented from voting at an election. The candidate she intended to vote for, wins the election.Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?Options:a)Saroj’s legal right has been violated and she can sue the persons who prevented her from votingb)Since Saroj‘s candidate has won the election, her rights are not violated and she cannot sue.c)Since Saroj is not the candidate, her rights are not violated if she is prevented from voting.d)This principle is not at all applicable in this case.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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: When there is an infringement of the legal right of a person, he gets a right to sue the wrongdoer for remedy irrespective of any actual loss caused.Fact Situation: Saroj is prevented from voting at an election. The candidate she intended to vote for, wins the election.Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?Options:a)Saroj’s legal right has been violated and she can sue the persons who prevented her from votingb)Since Saroj‘s candidate has won the election, her rights are not violated and she cannot sue.c)Since Saroj is not the candidate, her rights are not violated if she is prevented from voting.d)This principle is not at all applicable in this case.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Legal Principle: When there is an infringement of the legal right of a person, he gets a right to sue the wrongdoer for remedy irrespective of any actual loss caused.Fact Situation: Saroj is prevented from voting at an election. The candidate she intended to vote for, wins the election.Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?Options:a)Saroj’s legal right has been violated and she can sue the persons who prevented her from votingb)Since Saroj‘s candidate has won the election, her rights are not violated and she cannot sue.c)Since Saroj is not the candidate, her rights are not violated if she is prevented from voting.d)This principle is not at all applicable in this case.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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: When there is an infringement of the legal right of a person, he gets a right to sue the wrongdoer for remedy irrespective of any actual loss caused.Fact Situation: Saroj is prevented from voting at an election. The candidate she intended to vote for, wins the election.Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?Options:a)Saroj’s legal right has been violated and she can sue the persons who prevented her from votingb)Since Saroj‘s candidate has won the election, her rights are not violated and she cannot sue.c)Since Saroj is not the candidate, her rights are not violated if she is prevented from voting.d)This principle is not at all applicable in this case.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Legal Principle: When there is an infringement of the legal right of a person, he gets a right to sue the wrongdoer for remedy irrespective of any actual loss caused.Fact Situation: Saroj is prevented from voting at an election. The candidate she intended to vote for, wins the election.Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?Options:a)Saroj’s legal right has been violated and she can sue the persons who prevented her from votingb)Since Saroj‘s candidate has won the election, her rights are not violated and she cannot sue.c)Since Saroj is not the candidate, her rights are not violated if she is prevented from voting.d)This principle is not at all applicable in this case.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Legal Principle: When there is an infringement of the legal right of a person, he gets a right to sue the wrongdoer for remedy irrespective of any actual loss caused.Fact Situation: Saroj is prevented from voting at an election. The candidate she intended to vote for, wins the election.Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?Options:a)Saroj’s legal right has been violated and she can sue the persons who prevented her from votingb)Since Saroj‘s candidate has won the election, her rights are not violated and she cannot sue.c)Since Saroj is not the candidate, her rights are not violated if she is prevented from voting.d)This principle is not at all applicable in this case.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Legal Principle: When there is an infringement of the legal right of a person, he gets a right to sue the wrongdoer for remedy irrespective of any actual loss caused.Fact Situation: Saroj is prevented from voting at an election. The candidate she intended to vote for, wins the election.Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?Options:a)Saroj’s legal right has been violated and she can sue the persons who prevented her from votingb)Since Saroj‘s candidate has won the election, her rights are not violated and she cannot sue.c)Since Saroj is not the candidate, her rights are not violated if she is prevented from voting.d)This principle is not at all applicable in this case.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Legal Principle: When there is an infringement of the legal right of a person, he gets a right to sue the wrongdoer for remedy irrespective of any actual loss caused.Fact Situation: Saroj is prevented from voting at an election. The candidate she intended to vote for, wins the election.Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?Options:a)Saroj’s legal right has been violated and she can sue the persons who prevented her from votingb)Since Saroj‘s candidate has won the election, her rights are not violated and she cannot sue.c)Since Saroj is not the candidate, her rights are not violated if she is prevented from voting.d)This principle is not at all applicable in this case.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam