Maharashtra Judicial Services Prelims Mock Test - 5 - Judiciary Exams MCQ

Sec. 326 CrPC deals with 'conviction or commitment on evidence partly recorded by one Magistrate and partly by another'. Clause (3) of this section says that 'nothing in this section applies to summary trials or to cases in which proceedings have been stayed under Section 322 or in which proceedings have been submitted to a superior Magistrate under Section 325'. The trial of offence of Section 138 NI Act is mandated summarily.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah & anr v. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal & another, AIR 2011 SC 3076, did not find good in law where complaint for offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 was tried summarily, successor Magistrate appreciated the evidence recorded by his predecessor. The Apex Court held that even consent of the parties cannot give jurisdiction to the court to try case in ignorance of the provisions of law.
Therefore, after the transfer of Magistrate, trial of an offence under Section 138 of NI Act is to be conducted afresh by the new Magistrate.

The words 'permanent scar' used in the question are indicative of the fact that it is a permanent mark in the form of a scar on the face, which amounts to permanent disfiguration; therefore, it is a grievous hurt caused by a cutting object, i.e. a blade. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the case of Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2012 SC 3802, said that when a permanent scar is made on the face of the victim, it is not a simple injury but would be covered by the definition of grievous hurt, as defined under Section 320 IPC.
Therefore, it is clear that right answer would be 'grievous hurt by a sharp cutting object'.

According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence act, evidence means and includes—
(1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, such statements are called oral evidence;
(2) all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court, such documents are called documentary evidence.
Thus, option 4 is not an 'evidence' within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act.

Partner by estoppel -If a person falsely represents himself as a partner of any firm or behaves in a way that somebody can have an impression that such person is a partner and on the basis of this impression transacts with that firm then that person is held liable to the third party for any debt or otherwise.The person who falsely represents himself as a partner is known as partner by estoppel.

Section 72 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with the rights of mortgagee in possession. According to the section, a mortgagee may spend such money as is necessary

• for the preservation of the mortgaged property from destruction, forfeiture or sale;
• for supporting the mortgagor's title to the property;
• for making his own title thereto good against the mortgagor; and
• when the mortgaged property is a renewable lease-hold, for the renewal of the lease;

and may, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, add such money to the principal money, at the rate of interest payable on the principal, and, where no such rate is fixed, at the rate of nine per cent per annum.

Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act states that an injunction cannot be granted—
(a) to restrain any person from prosecuting a judicial proceeding pending at the institution of the suit in which the injunction is sought, unless such restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings;
(b) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought;
(c) to restrain any person from applying to any legislative body;
(d) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal matter;
(e) to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which would not be specifically enforced;
(f) to prevent, on the ground of nuisance, an act of which it is not reasonably clear that it will be a nuisance;
(g) to prevent a continuing breach in which the plaintiff has acquiesced;
(h) when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust;
(ha) if it would impede or delay the progress or completion of any infrastructure project or interfere with the continued provision of relevant facility related thereto or services being the subject matter of such project.
(i) when the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to disentitle him to be the assistance of the court;
(j) when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter.

Section 8 of the Specific Relief Act provides for the liability of person in possession, not as owner, to deliver to persons entitled to immediate possession. Any person having the possession or control of a particular article of movable property, of which he is not the owner, may be compelled specifically to deliver it to the person entitled to its immediate possession, in any of the following cases—
(a) when the thing claimed is held by the defendant as the agent or trustee of the plaintiff;
(b) when compensation in money would not afford the plaintiff adequate relief for the loss of the thing claimed;
(c) when it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the actual damage caused by its loss;
(d) when the possession of the thing claimed has been wrongfully transferred from the plaintiff.
Explanation—Unless and until the contrary is proved, the court shall, in respect of any article of movable property claimed under clause (b) or clause (c) of this section, presume—
(a) that compensation in money would not afford the plaintiff adequate relief for the loss of the thing claimed, or, as the case may be;
(b) that it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the actual damage caused by its loss.

The Schedule of Limitation in the Limitation Act, 1963, lists the various time limits within which legal proceedings must be instituted. The schedule is divided into various divisions, with each division specifying a different category of legal proceedings.
The first division of the schedule is prescribed for suits. It includes different types of suits such as:

1. Suits for possession of immovable property or any interest therein - 12 years from the date when the possession of the property is unlawfully taken away or lost
2. Suits for specific performance of a contract - 3 years from the date when the right to sue accrues
3. Suits for declaration of title to immovable property or any interest therein - 12 years from the date when the right to sue accrues
4. Suits for possession of movable property - 3 years from the date when the possession of the property is unlawfully taken away or lost
5. Suits for compensation for injury to person or property caused by negligence or breach of duty - 3 years from the date when the right to sue accrues

The first division of the schedule, therefore, deals with the time limits for various types of suits.