Question Description
Passage(Excerpted from the judgment of RIGHT OF PASSAGE OVER INDIAN TERRITORY CASE (Portugal v. India))Portugal claims a right of passage between Daman and the enclaves, and between the enclaves, across intervening Indian territory, to the extent necessary for the exercise of its sovereignty over the enclaves, subject to Indias right of regulation and control of the passage claimed, and without any immunity in Portugals favour. It claims further that India is under obligation so to exercise its power of regulation and control as not to prevent the passage necessary for the exercise of Portugals sovereignty over the enclaves. India argues that the vague and contradictory character of the right claimed by Portugal is proved by Portugals admission that on the one hand the exercise of the right is subject to Indias regulation and control as the territorial sovereign, and that on the other hand the right is not accompanied by any immunity, even in the case of the passage of armed forces. There is no doubt that the day-to-day exercise of the right of passage as formulated by Portugal, with correlative obligation upon India, may give rise to delicate questions of application, but that is not, in the view of the Court, sufficient ground for holding that the right is not susceptible of judicial determination with reference to Article 38 (1) of the Statute. In support of its claim, Portugal relies on the Treaty of Poona of 1779 and on sanads (decrees), issued by the Maratha ruler in 1783 and 1785, as having conferred sovereignty on Portugal over the enclaves with the right of passage to them. India objects on various grounds that what is alleged to be the Treaty of 1779 was not validly entered into and never became in law a treaty binding upon the Marathas. It is sufficient to state that the validity of a treaty concluded as long ago as the last quarter of the eighteenth century, in the conditions then prevailing in the Indian Peninsula, should not be judged upon the basis of practices and procedures which have since developed only gradually. The Marathas themselves regarded the Treaty of 1779 as valid and binding upon them, and gave effect to its provisions. The Treaty is frequently referred to as such in subsequent forma1 Maratha documents, including the two sanads of 1783 and 1785, which purport to have been issued in pursuance of the Treaty. The Marathas did not at any time cast any doubt upon the validity or binding character of the Treaty. India contends further that the Treaty and the two sanads of 1783 and 1785 taken together did not operate to transfer sovereignty over the assigned villages to Portugal, but only conferred upon it, with respect to the villages, a revenue grant of the value of 12,000 rupees per annum called a jagir or saranjam.Q. The principle of “ex acquo et bono” is contained ina)Article 38(1)(a) of the statue of ICJb)Article 38(1)(b) of the statue of ICJc)Article 38(2) of the statue of ICJd)Article 38(3) of the statue of ICJCorrect 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 Passage(Excerpted from the judgment of RIGHT OF PASSAGE OVER INDIAN TERRITORY CASE (Portugal v. India))Portugal claims a right of passage between Daman and the enclaves, and between the enclaves, across intervening Indian territory, to the extent necessary for the exercise of its sovereignty over the enclaves, subject to Indias right of regulation and control of the passage claimed, and without any immunity in Portugals favour. It claims further that India is under obligation so to exercise its power of regulation and control as not to prevent the passage necessary for the exercise of Portugals sovereignty over the enclaves. India argues that the vague and contradictory character of the right claimed by Portugal is proved by Portugals admission that on the one hand the exercise of the right is subject to Indias regulation and control as the territorial sovereign, and that on the other hand the right is not accompanied by any immunity, even in the case of the passage of armed forces. There is no doubt that the day-to-day exercise of the right of passage as formulated by Portugal, with correlative obligation upon India, may give rise to delicate questions of application, but that is not, in the view of the Court, sufficient ground for holding that the right is not susceptible of judicial determination with reference to Article 38 (1) of the Statute. In support of its claim, Portugal relies on the Treaty of Poona of 1779 and on sanads (decrees), issued by the Maratha ruler in 1783 and 1785, as having conferred sovereignty on Portugal over the enclaves with the right of passage to them. India objects on various grounds that what is alleged to be the Treaty of 1779 was not validly entered into and never became in law a treaty binding upon the Marathas. It is sufficient to state that the validity of a treaty concluded as long ago as the last quarter of the eighteenth century, in the conditions then prevailing in the Indian Peninsula, should not be judged upon the basis of practices and procedures which have since developed only gradually. The Marathas themselves regarded the Treaty of 1779 as valid and binding upon them, and gave effect to its provisions. The Treaty is frequently referred to as such in subsequent forma1 Maratha documents, including the two sanads of 1783 and 1785, which purport to have been issued in pursuance of the Treaty. The Marathas did not at any time cast any doubt upon the validity or binding character of the Treaty. India contends further that the Treaty and the two sanads of 1783 and 1785 taken together did not operate to transfer sovereignty over the assigned villages to Portugal, but only conferred upon it, with respect to the villages, a revenue grant of the value of 12,000 rupees per annum called a jagir or saranjam.Q. The principle of “ex acquo et bono” is contained ina)Article 38(1)(a) of the statue of ICJb)Article 38(1)(b) of the statue of ICJc)Article 38(2) of the statue of ICJd)Article 38(3) of the statue of ICJCorrect 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 Passage(Excerpted from the judgment of RIGHT OF PASSAGE OVER INDIAN TERRITORY CASE (Portugal v. India))Portugal claims a right of passage between Daman and the enclaves, and between the enclaves, across intervening Indian territory, to the extent necessary for the exercise of its sovereignty over the enclaves, subject to Indias right of regulation and control of the passage claimed, and without any immunity in Portugals favour. It claims further that India is under obligation so to exercise its power of regulation and control as not to prevent the passage necessary for the exercise of Portugals sovereignty over the enclaves. India argues that the vague and contradictory character of the right claimed by Portugal is proved by Portugals admission that on the one hand the exercise of the right is subject to Indias regulation and control as the territorial sovereign, and that on the other hand the right is not accompanied by any immunity, even in the case of the passage of armed forces. There is no doubt that the day-to-day exercise of the right of passage as formulated by Portugal, with correlative obligation upon India, may give rise to delicate questions of application, but that is not, in the view of the Court, sufficient ground for holding that the right is not susceptible of judicial determination with reference to Article 38 (1) of the Statute. In support of its claim, Portugal relies on the Treaty of Poona of 1779 and on sanads (decrees), issued by the Maratha ruler in 1783 and 1785, as having conferred sovereignty on Portugal over the enclaves with the right of passage to them. India objects on various grounds that what is alleged to be the Treaty of 1779 was not validly entered into and never became in law a treaty binding upon the Marathas. It is sufficient to state that the validity of a treaty concluded as long ago as the last quarter of the eighteenth century, in the conditions then prevailing in the Indian Peninsula, should not be judged upon the basis of practices and procedures which have since developed only gradually. The Marathas themselves regarded the Treaty of 1779 as valid and binding upon them, and gave effect to its provisions. The Treaty is frequently referred to as such in subsequent forma1 Maratha documents, including the two sanads of 1783 and 1785, which purport to have been issued in pursuance of the Treaty. The Marathas did not at any time cast any doubt upon the validity or binding character of the Treaty. India contends further that the Treaty and the two sanads of 1783 and 1785 taken together did not operate to transfer sovereignty over the assigned villages to Portugal, but only conferred upon it, with respect to the villages, a revenue grant of the value of 12,000 rupees per annum called a jagir or saranjam.Q. The principle of “ex acquo et bono” is contained ina)Article 38(1)(a) of the statue of ICJb)Article 38(1)(b) of the statue of ICJc)Article 38(2) of the statue of ICJd)Article 38(3) of the statue of ICJCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Passage(Excerpted from the judgment of RIGHT OF PASSAGE OVER INDIAN TERRITORY CASE (Portugal v. India))Portugal claims a right of passage between Daman and the enclaves, and between the enclaves, across intervening Indian territory, to the extent necessary for the exercise of its sovereignty over the enclaves, subject to Indias right of regulation and control of the passage claimed, and without any immunity in Portugals favour. It claims further that India is under obligation so to exercise its power of regulation and control as not to prevent the passage necessary for the exercise of Portugals sovereignty over the enclaves. India argues that the vague and contradictory character of the right claimed by Portugal is proved by Portugals admission that on the one hand the exercise of the right is subject to Indias regulation and control as the territorial sovereign, and that on the other hand the right is not accompanied by any immunity, even in the case of the passage of armed forces. There is no doubt that the day-to-day exercise of the right of passage as formulated by Portugal, with correlative obligation upon India, may give rise to delicate questions of application, but that is not, in the view of the Court, sufficient ground for holding that the right is not susceptible of judicial determination with reference to Article 38 (1) of the Statute. In support of its claim, Portugal relies on the Treaty of Poona of 1779 and on sanads (decrees), issued by the Maratha ruler in 1783 and 1785, as having conferred sovereignty on Portugal over the enclaves with the right of passage to them. India objects on various grounds that what is alleged to be the Treaty of 1779 was not validly entered into and never became in law a treaty binding upon the Marathas. It is sufficient to state that the validity of a treaty concluded as long ago as the last quarter of the eighteenth century, in the conditions then prevailing in the Indian Peninsula, should not be judged upon the basis of practices and procedures which have since developed only gradually. The Marathas themselves regarded the Treaty of 1779 as valid and binding upon them, and gave effect to its provisions. The Treaty is frequently referred to as such in subsequent forma1 Maratha documents, including the two sanads of 1783 and 1785, which purport to have been issued in pursuance of the Treaty. The Marathas did not at any time cast any doubt upon the validity or binding character of the Treaty. India contends further that the Treaty and the two sanads of 1783 and 1785 taken together did not operate to transfer sovereignty over the assigned villages to Portugal, but only conferred upon it, with respect to the villages, a revenue grant of the value of 12,000 rupees per annum called a jagir or saranjam.Q. The principle of “ex acquo et bono” is contained ina)Article 38(1)(a) of the statue of ICJb)Article 38(1)(b) of the statue of ICJc)Article 38(2) of the statue of ICJd)Article 38(3) of the statue of ICJCorrect 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 Passage(Excerpted from the judgment of RIGHT OF PASSAGE OVER INDIAN TERRITORY CASE (Portugal v. India))Portugal claims a right of passage between Daman and the enclaves, and between the enclaves, across intervening Indian territory, to the extent necessary for the exercise of its sovereignty over the enclaves, subject to Indias right of regulation and control of the passage claimed, and without any immunity in Portugals favour. It claims further that India is under obligation so to exercise its power of regulation and control as not to prevent the passage necessary for the exercise of Portugals sovereignty over the enclaves. India argues that the vague and contradictory character of the right claimed by Portugal is proved by Portugals admission that on the one hand the exercise of the right is subject to Indias regulation and control as the territorial sovereign, and that on the other hand the right is not accompanied by any immunity, even in the case of the passage of armed forces. There is no doubt that the day-to-day exercise of the right of passage as formulated by Portugal, with correlative obligation upon India, may give rise to delicate questions of application, but that is not, in the view of the Court, sufficient ground for holding that the right is not susceptible of judicial determination with reference to Article 38 (1) of the Statute. In support of its claim, Portugal relies on the Treaty of Poona of 1779 and on sanads (decrees), issued by the Maratha ruler in 1783 and 1785, as having conferred sovereignty on Portugal over the enclaves with the right of passage to them. India objects on various grounds that what is alleged to be the Treaty of 1779 was not validly entered into and never became in law a treaty binding upon the Marathas. It is sufficient to state that the validity of a treaty concluded as long ago as the last quarter of the eighteenth century, in the conditions then prevailing in the Indian Peninsula, should not be judged upon the basis of practices and procedures which have since developed only gradually. The Marathas themselves regarded the Treaty of 1779 as valid and binding upon them, and gave effect to its provisions. The Treaty is frequently referred to as such in subsequent forma1 Maratha documents, including the two sanads of 1783 and 1785, which purport to have been issued in pursuance of the Treaty. The Marathas did not at any time cast any doubt upon the validity or binding character of the Treaty. India contends further that the Treaty and the two sanads of 1783 and 1785 taken together did not operate to transfer sovereignty over the assigned villages to Portugal, but only conferred upon it, with respect to the villages, a revenue grant of the value of 12,000 rupees per annum called a jagir or saranjam.Q. The principle of “ex acquo et bono” is contained ina)Article 38(1)(a) of the statue of ICJb)Article 38(1)(b) of the statue of ICJc)Article 38(2) of the statue of ICJd)Article 38(3) of the statue of ICJCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Passage(Excerpted from the judgment of RIGHT OF PASSAGE OVER INDIAN TERRITORY CASE (Portugal v. India))Portugal claims a right of passage between Daman and the enclaves, and between the enclaves, across intervening Indian territory, to the extent necessary for the exercise of its sovereignty over the enclaves, subject to Indias right of regulation and control of the passage claimed, and without any immunity in Portugals favour. It claims further that India is under obligation so to exercise its power of regulation and control as not to prevent the passage necessary for the exercise of Portugals sovereignty over the enclaves. India argues that the vague and contradictory character of the right claimed by Portugal is proved by Portugals admission that on the one hand the exercise of the right is subject to Indias regulation and control as the territorial sovereign, and that on the other hand the right is not accompanied by any immunity, even in the case of the passage of armed forces. There is no doubt that the day-to-day exercise of the right of passage as formulated by Portugal, with correlative obligation upon India, may give rise to delicate questions of application, but that is not, in the view of the Court, sufficient ground for holding that the right is not susceptible of judicial determination with reference to Article 38 (1) of the Statute. In support of its claim, Portugal relies on the Treaty of Poona of 1779 and on sanads (decrees), issued by the Maratha ruler in 1783 and 1785, as having conferred sovereignty on Portugal over the enclaves with the right of passage to them. India objects on various grounds that what is alleged to be the Treaty of 1779 was not validly entered into and never became in law a treaty binding upon the Marathas. It is sufficient to state that the validity of a treaty concluded as long ago as the last quarter of the eighteenth century, in the conditions then prevailing in the Indian Peninsula, should not be judged upon the basis of practices and procedures which have since developed only gradually. The Marathas themselves regarded the Treaty of 1779 as valid and binding upon them, and gave effect to its provisions. The Treaty is frequently referred to as such in subsequent forma1 Maratha documents, including the two sanads of 1783 and 1785, which purport to have been issued in pursuance of the Treaty. The Marathas did not at any time cast any doubt upon the validity or binding character of the Treaty. India contends further that the Treaty and the two sanads of 1783 and 1785 taken together did not operate to transfer sovereignty over the assigned villages to Portugal, but only conferred upon it, with respect to the villages, a revenue grant of the value of 12,000 rupees per annum called a jagir or saranjam.Q. The principle of “ex acquo et bono” is contained ina)Article 38(1)(a) of the statue of ICJb)Article 38(1)(b) of the statue of ICJc)Article 38(2) of the statue of ICJd)Article 38(3) of the statue of ICJCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Passage(Excerpted from the judgment of RIGHT OF PASSAGE OVER INDIAN TERRITORY CASE (Portugal v. India))Portugal claims a right of passage between Daman and the enclaves, and between the enclaves, across intervening Indian territory, to the extent necessary for the exercise of its sovereignty over the enclaves, subject to Indias right of regulation and control of the passage claimed, and without any immunity in Portugals favour. It claims further that India is under obligation so to exercise its power of regulation and control as not to prevent the passage necessary for the exercise of Portugals sovereignty over the enclaves. India argues that the vague and contradictory character of the right claimed by Portugal is proved by Portugals admission that on the one hand the exercise of the right is subject to Indias regulation and control as the territorial sovereign, and that on the other hand the right is not accompanied by any immunity, even in the case of the passage of armed forces. There is no doubt that the day-to-day exercise of the right of passage as formulated by Portugal, with correlative obligation upon India, may give rise to delicate questions of application, but that is not, in the view of the Court, sufficient ground for holding that the right is not susceptible of judicial determination with reference to Article 38 (1) of the Statute. In support of its claim, Portugal relies on the Treaty of Poona of 1779 and on sanads (decrees), issued by the Maratha ruler in 1783 and 1785, as having conferred sovereignty on Portugal over the enclaves with the right of passage to them. India objects on various grounds that what is alleged to be the Treaty of 1779 was not validly entered into and never became in law a treaty binding upon the Marathas. It is sufficient to state that the validity of a treaty concluded as long ago as the last quarter of the eighteenth century, in the conditions then prevailing in the Indian Peninsula, should not be judged upon the basis of practices and procedures which have since developed only gradually. The Marathas themselves regarded the Treaty of 1779 as valid and binding upon them, and gave effect to its provisions. The Treaty is frequently referred to as such in subsequent forma1 Maratha documents, including the two sanads of 1783 and 1785, which purport to have been issued in pursuance of the Treaty. The Marathas did not at any time cast any doubt upon the validity or binding character of the Treaty. India contends further that the Treaty and the two sanads of 1783 and 1785 taken together did not operate to transfer sovereignty over the assigned villages to Portugal, but only conferred upon it, with respect to the villages, a revenue grant of the value of 12,000 rupees per annum called a jagir or saranjam.Q. The principle of “ex acquo et bono” is contained ina)Article 38(1)(a) of the statue of ICJb)Article 38(1)(b) of the statue of ICJc)Article 38(2) of the statue of ICJd)Article 38(3) of the statue of ICJCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Passage(Excerpted from the judgment of RIGHT OF PASSAGE OVER INDIAN TERRITORY CASE (Portugal v. India))Portugal claims a right of passage between Daman and the enclaves, and between the enclaves, across intervening Indian territory, to the extent necessary for the exercise of its sovereignty over the enclaves, subject to Indias right of regulation and control of the passage claimed, and without any immunity in Portugals favour. It claims further that India is under obligation so to exercise its power of regulation and control as not to prevent the passage necessary for the exercise of Portugals sovereignty over the enclaves. India argues that the vague and contradictory character of the right claimed by Portugal is proved by Portugals admission that on the one hand the exercise of the right is subject to Indias regulation and control as the territorial sovereign, and that on the other hand the right is not accompanied by any immunity, even in the case of the passage of armed forces. There is no doubt that the day-to-day exercise of the right of passage as formulated by Portugal, with correlative obligation upon India, may give rise to delicate questions of application, but that is not, in the view of the Court, sufficient ground for holding that the right is not susceptible of judicial determination with reference to Article 38 (1) of the Statute. In support of its claim, Portugal relies on the Treaty of Poona of 1779 and on sanads (decrees), issued by the Maratha ruler in 1783 and 1785, as having conferred sovereignty on Portugal over the enclaves with the right of passage to them. India objects on various grounds that what is alleged to be the Treaty of 1779 was not validly entered into and never became in law a treaty binding upon the Marathas. It is sufficient to state that the validity of a treaty concluded as long ago as the last quarter of the eighteenth century, in the conditions then prevailing in the Indian Peninsula, should not be judged upon the basis of practices and procedures which have since developed only gradually. The Marathas themselves regarded the Treaty of 1779 as valid and binding upon them, and gave effect to its provisions. The Treaty is frequently referred to as such in subsequent forma1 Maratha documents, including the two sanads of 1783 and 1785, which purport to have been issued in pursuance of the Treaty. The Marathas did not at any time cast any doubt upon the validity or binding character of the Treaty. India contends further that the Treaty and the two sanads of 1783 and 1785 taken together did not operate to transfer sovereignty over the assigned villages to Portugal, but only conferred upon it, with respect to the villages, a revenue grant of the value of 12,000 rupees per annum called a jagir or saranjam.Q. The principle of “ex acquo et bono” is contained ina)Article 38(1)(a) of the statue of ICJb)Article 38(1)(b) of the statue of ICJc)Article 38(2) of the statue of ICJd)Article 38(3) of the statue of ICJCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Passage(Excerpted from the judgment of RIGHT OF PASSAGE OVER INDIAN TERRITORY CASE (Portugal v. India))Portugal claims a right of passage between Daman and the enclaves, and between the enclaves, across intervening Indian territory, to the extent necessary for the exercise of its sovereignty over the enclaves, subject to Indias right of regulation and control of the passage claimed, and without any immunity in Portugals favour. It claims further that India is under obligation so to exercise its power of regulation and control as not to prevent the passage necessary for the exercise of Portugals sovereignty over the enclaves. India argues that the vague and contradictory character of the right claimed by Portugal is proved by Portugals admission that on the one hand the exercise of the right is subject to Indias regulation and control as the territorial sovereign, and that on the other hand the right is not accompanied by any immunity, even in the case of the passage of armed forces. There is no doubt that the day-to-day exercise of the right of passage as formulated by Portugal, with correlative obligation upon India, may give rise to delicate questions of application, but that is not, in the view of the Court, sufficient ground for holding that the right is not susceptible of judicial determination with reference to Article 38 (1) of the Statute. In support of its claim, Portugal relies on the Treaty of Poona of 1779 and on sanads (decrees), issued by the Maratha ruler in 1783 and 1785, as having conferred sovereignty on Portugal over the enclaves with the right of passage to them. India objects on various grounds that what is alleged to be the Treaty of 1779 was not validly entered into and never became in law a treaty binding upon the Marathas. It is sufficient to state that the validity of a treaty concluded as long ago as the last quarter of the eighteenth century, in the conditions then prevailing in the Indian Peninsula, should not be judged upon the basis of practices and procedures which have since developed only gradually. The Marathas themselves regarded the Treaty of 1779 as valid and binding upon them, and gave effect to its provisions. The Treaty is frequently referred to as such in subsequent forma1 Maratha documents, including the two sanads of 1783 and 1785, which purport to have been issued in pursuance of the Treaty. The Marathas did not at any time cast any doubt upon the validity or binding character of the Treaty. India contends further that the Treaty and the two sanads of 1783 and 1785 taken together did not operate to transfer sovereignty over the assigned villages to Portugal, but only conferred upon it, with respect to the villages, a revenue grant of the value of 12,000 rupees per annum called a jagir or saranjam.Q. The principle of “ex acquo et bono” is contained ina)Article 38(1)(a) of the statue of ICJb)Article 38(1)(b) of the statue of ICJc)Article 38(2) of the statue of ICJd)Article 38(3) of the statue of ICJCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.