West Bengal Judicial Services Prelims Mock Test - 3 - Judiciary Exams MCQ

Use structure “subject + auxiliary + past participle + object”
As per the above sentence is given in Active Voice.
We had completed our task before sunset.
Hence , option B will be correct answer .

imaginary: existing only in your mind
speculative: based on guessing / on opinions that have been formed without knowing in facts
scurrilous: Severely abusive writing in journals
sarcastic: expressing or expressive of ridicule that hurts

Pavan Davuluri has been named as the new head of Microsoft's combined Windows and Surface teams, succeeding the previous leader, Panos Panay. Davuluri, a 23-year veteran at Microsoft, brings extensive experience in PC, Xbox, Surface, and Windows leadership roles, including efforts with Arm-based processors.

The correct answer is 'Blackbuck'.

Key Points

• The State Animal of Punjab is the blackbuck.
• The blackbuck deer, a species on the edge of extinction, is the main attraction at Abohar Wildlife Sanctuary.
• Other State Symbols of Punjab -
  • State Tree: Shisham
  • State Bird: Northern Goshawk
  • State Flower: Gladiolus

Additional Information

• The Bengal tiger is the national animal of India.
• The Elephant is the state animal of Jharkhand, Karnataka, and Kerala.

Checking Statement I:

Using the above references, we get the information:
 
_ > _ > _ > _ > Tarak > _

Vijay > Komal > Rishi

Here, we cannot merge the above inferences to form a single arrangement of the order of heights of these persons.

So, we cannot say who among these persons is the tallest.

Hence, data in statement I alone is not sufficient.

Checking Statement II:

Using the above references, we get the information:

Rishi > Tarak/Sanjay

So, we cannot say who among these persons is the tallest.

Hence, data in statement II alone is not sufficient.

Checking Statements I and II:

Using the above reference, we get the following arrangement:

Usha > Vijay > Komal > Rishi > Tarak > Sanjay

Clearly, both statements I and II together are sufficient to answer the question.

Hence, Option D is correct.

The exception to the rule, "law of limitation only bars the remedy, but does not extinguish the right itself" is contained in Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in India. Section 27 states that when a right to property is acquired by adverse possession, the title of the previous owner extinguishes and the person who acquires the right by adverse possession gets the absolute title to the property. This exception means that in cases where adverse possession has been established, the law of limitation not only bars the remedy, but also extinguishes the right itself.

Amendments made in the year 1999 through the insertion of Section 89 to the Civil Procedure Code introduced provisions to enable the courts to refer pending cases to arbitration, conciliation and mediation to facilitate early and amicable resolution of disputes.
Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code was introduced with a purpose of amicable, peaceful and mutual settlement between parties without intervention of the court. It came into being in its current form on account of enforcement of the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999 with effect from 1/7/2002.

The given legal maxim is in Latin and is often used in the context of personal injury or tort law. It means that any claim or cause of action that arises from a personal injury or tort dies with the person who suffered the injury or harm. Therefore, if the person who suffered the injury dies, their claim dies with them, and their legal representatives cannot bring any action on their behalf. This maxim applies to claims that are personal to the injured party and cannot be transferred or assigned to another person.

X has both remedies, i.e. he can repudiate the contract and can recover damages from Y. X can cancel the contract and demand damages for its breach.

A general offer is one that is made to the public at large. It is not made any specified parties. So any member of the public can accept the offer and be entitled to the rewards/consideration. In cases of general otter, for a valid contract, the acceptor need not have the knowledge of the offer.

The National Commission to review the working of the Constitution (NCRWC), also known as Justice Manepalli Narayana Rao Venkatachaliah Commission, was set up by a resolution of the NDA Government of India led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee on 22nd February, 2000 for suggesting possible amendments to the Constitution of India. It submitted its report in 2002. The 11-member commission was headed by Retired Chief Justice of India Justice M. N. Venkatachaliah. The other members of the Commission were B. P. Jeevan Reddy (Chairman of the Law Commission), R. S. Sarkaria (Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India), K. Punnayya (Former Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court), Soli Sorabjee (Attorney-General of India), K. Parasaran (Former Attorney-General of India), Subhash C. Kashyap (Former Secretary-General of Lok Sabha), C. R. Irani (Chief Editor and Managing Director of the Statesman), Abid Hussain (Former Ambassador of India to the USA), Sumitra Kulkarni (Former Member of Parliament) and P. A. Sangma (Former Speaker of Lok Sabha).

According to Section 60 of the CPC, the properties which are liable to be attached and sold in execution of a decree are, namely, lands, houses or other buildings, goods, money, bank notes, cheques, bills of exchange, hundis, promissory notes, government securities, bonds or other securities for money, debts, shares in a corporation and, save as hereinafter mentioned, all other saleable property, movable or immovable, belonging to the judgement debtor, or over which, or the profits of which, he has a disposing power which he may exercise for his own benefit, whether the same be held in the name of the judgement debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf. Therefore, 'books and accounts' is not liable to be attached and sold in execution of a decree.

Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, deals with the provision relating to continuing breaches and torts. It states that in case of a continuing breach of contract or a continuing tort, a fresh period of limitation shall begin to run at every moment of time during which the breach or the tort, as the case may be, continues.

A contingent contract is an agreement that states which actions under certain conditions will result in specific outcomes. Contingent contracts usually occur when negotiating parties fail to reach an agreement. As per Section 35 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, contingent contracts to do or not to do anything, if a specified uncertain event happens within a fixed time, become void if, at the expiration of the time fixed, such event has not happened, or if, before the time fixed, such event becomes impossible.

The doctrine of colourable legislation refers to the question of competency of the legislature while enacting a provision of law. The doctrine becomes applicable whenever any legislation seeks to do in an indirect manner what it cannot do directly. If the impugned legislation falls within the competence of legislature, the question of doing something indirectly which cannot be done directly does not arise.

Section 12 of the Limitation Act contains provisions relating to exclusion of time in legal proceedings. Clause (4) of the section expressly states that in computing the period of limitation for an application to set aside an award, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded.

Explanation to Order VII, Rule 10 clearly states, 'For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that a Court of appeal or revision may direct, after setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the return of the plaint'. So, option 1 is the correct answer.

Option (2) is correct: Under Order VIII, Rule 6D of the CPC, if in any case in which the defendant sets up a counterclaim, the suit of the plaintiff is stayed, discontinued or dismissed; the counterclaim may nevertheless be proceeded with.
This further illustrates the principle that a counterclaim is to be treated as a cross action, and is not affected by anything which relates solely to the plaintiff's claim. Thus, where the plaintiff discontinues action and the counterclaim has been served, he cannot prevent the defendant from enforcing against him the causes of action contained in the counterclaim.

Section 26 of CPC contains the principle behind the institution of suit. It states that
(1) every suit shall be instituted by the presentation of a plaint or in such other manner as may be prescribed
(2) in every plaint, facts shall be proved by an affidavit

In Rex v. Govinda case, the points of distinction between the provisions of Sections 299 and 300 of IPC were explained. Judge Melvill J. compared the provisions of Sections 299 and 300, IPC viz. cul­pable homicide and murder.

The following provisions deal with the same subject.
Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act says that the court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of any credit, unless corroborated in material particulars.
Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act says that an accomplice shall be a competent witness as against the accused person and a conviction of the accused based on the testimony of an accomplice is valid, even though it is not corroborated in material particulars.

Hadley v Baxendale is a leading English contract law case. Principles evolved in this case are the basis of section 73 of the Indian Contract Act,1872.
It sets the basic rule to determine consequential damages from a breach of contract: a breaching party is liable for all losses that the contracting parties should have foreseen, but is not liable for any losses that the breaching party could not have foreseen on the information available to him.
Section 73 of the Contract Act lays down the provision relating to damages. It provides that the party, who breaches a contract, is liable to compensate the injured party for any loss or damage caused, due to the breach of contract.

Under section 366B of IPC, Whoever imports into India from any country outside India or from the State of Jammu and Kashmir any girl under the age of twenty-one years with intent that she may be, or knowing it to be likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years and shall shall also be liable to fine.

The contents of Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is reproduced as below:
Rejection of plaint – The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provision of Rule 9.