Daily Passage Test for CLAT - Oct 2 MCQs & solutions Free

The correct answer is option C. In a democratic system, the right to vote is a fundamental and legal right granted to eligible citizens. Denying someone this right without a valid reason is a breach of their constitutional rights. Therefore, the police officer can be held liable for wrongfully preventing Rakesh from exercising his lawful right to vote.
Option A and Option B do not accurately reflect the legal implications of obstructing someone's right to vote.
Option D introduces a monetary aspect, which is not directly related to the violation of voting rights in this context.

The other companies won't be held liable as there is no legal harm caused to Axis Cycles. In the world of competition, if one company suffers loss on account of another company, it isn't considered to be a loss in legal terms. Therefore, no one is liable in this case.

The correct answer is option C. Banks have a legal obligation to process valid withdrawal requests made by account holders when sufficient funds are available in the account. Unreasonably refusing to honor a valid cheque can be considered a breach of this obligation and may lead to liability.
Option A suggests that the bank cannot be held liable because it is within their discretion, but this is not accurate when there is no valid reason for refusal.
Option B states that the bank is not liable because it did not cause harm, but the refusal itself can be considered a form of harm when it is unreasonable and violates banking regulations.
Option D combines options 1 and 2 but does not accurately address the bank's potential liability in this situation.

The correct answer is option B. In cases where a movie or artistic work offends an individual's religious sentiments but does not violate specific laws or regulations, it may not necessarily lead to legal liability for the creators or producers. Freedom of expression and artistic creativity are protected rights, and the mere offense to one's sentiments may not constitute a tort.
Option A suggests that Eva Production is liable because Piyush's sentiments were harmed, but legal liability requires more than just offense.
Option C states that offending religious sentiments is a criminal offense, which can be true in certain cases, but it depends on the specific legal framework in place.
Option D acknowledges that none of the provided options accurately addresses the situation, which is correct because the determination of liability in such cases can be complex and context-specific.

Mukesh cannot be held liable because there is a difference in the spellings of the coaching centers' names. Although there may be some similarity in pronunciation, the distinct spellings can serve as a defense for Mukesh. Consequently, Mukesh is not legally responsible for any wrongdoing, and the lawsuit is unlikely to be successful.