Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: Foreign judgment binds the parties and is conclusive unless it is obtained by fraud.
Facts: A obtains a judgment from the US court by producing fake documents.
विकल्प
New Suit can be filed in India on the same facts
Judgment can be enforced in US
Judgment can be enforced in India
A new suit can not be filed in India on the same facts
Advertisements
उत्तर
New Suit can be filed in India on the same facts
Explanation:
The principle and the fact are clear. The principal says the foreign judgment binds the parties unless they have been obtained by fraud. The fact is that A has received foreign judgment, but fraudulently. Therefore, it is not binding on the parties. So, a new suit can be filed.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
The Right to Property was excluded from the Fundamental Rights during the tenure of the Government headed by
Principle: Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so or to provide gratuitously, and such other person takes the benefit of that; the latter is bound to compensate the former for something is done or thing provided, or to restore, the thing so delivered.
Facts: Trader 'A' delivers certain eatables at B's house by mistake. 'B' consumed the eatables without asking anything. Which of the following derivations is correct?
Legal Principle: The Latin maxim nemo bis punitur pro eodem delictomeans that nobody can be punished twice for the same offence.
Fact Situation: Sajan, a petty thief, is caught and thrashed thoroughly by the people before being handed over to the police. Sajan pleads before the magistrate that since he was already thrashed by the people he should not be again punished by the State.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Result of successful prosecution is
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
- The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
- The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
- The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred 'but for' the negligence of the defendant. The claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant's breach of duty caused the harm.
Factual Situation: A 13-year-old boy fell from a tree. He went to a hospital where his hip was examined, but an incorrect diagnosis was made. After 5 days it was found that he was suffering from avascular necrosis. This was more advanced and serious than if it had been spotted straight away. Despite receiving treatment, it was determined that he had suffered from a muscular condition (avascular necrosis) which left the boy with a permanent disability and further left a strong probability that he would develop severe osteoarthritis later in life. The expert medical testimony indicated that had his fractured hip been identified on his initial hospital visit, there was a 25% chance of his condition having been successfully treated. He is claiming compensation for the negligence of the hospital. Whether the hospital's negligence on his initial visit had caused his injury?
Consent defines as
PRINCIPLE Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is to defame that person.
FACTS In a community, there is a custom of stealing shoes of the bridegroom during the marriage ceremony. The shoes of the bridegroom were stolen by 'Y'. 'A' announced that 'Z' has stolen the shoes. Everyone present in the marriage party started staring at 'Z' with great surprise. 'Z' felt very ashamed.
Principle: A Master is liable to third persons for every such wrong of his servant as committed in the course of service. For acts committed beyond the scope of employment, the master is liable only if he has expressly authorised the act.
A owned a bus and he had hired B to drive it and C to be the conductor. One day, when B had stepped out of the bus to have a cup of coffee. C decided to turn the bus around so that it was ready for its next trip. While doing so, C ran over D's leg, causing major injuries to him. D sued A for damages.
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Principle: Interference with another's goods in such a way as to deny the latter's title to the goods amounts to conversion, and thus it is a civil wrong. It is an act intentionally done inconsistent with the owner's right, though the doer may not know of, or intend to challenge, the property or possession of the true owner.
Facts: y or possession of the true owner. Facts: 'R' went to a cycle-stand to park his bicycle. Seeing the stand fully occupied, he removed a few bicycles in order to rearrange a portion of the stand and make some space for his bicycle. He parked his bicycle properly, and put back all the bicycles except the one belonging to 'S', In fact, 'R' was in a hurry, and therefore, he could not put back S's bicycle. Somebody came on the way and took away S's bicycle. The watchman of the stand did not take care of it assuming that the bicycle was not parked inside the stand. 'S' filed a suit against 'R' for conversion. Which of the following derivations is correct?
Given below is a Statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Principle: The owner of immovable property is entitled to the column of airspace above the surface. However, the owner's right to air and space above his land is restricted to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures on it.
Factual Situation: Galaxy Cable TV Network Company is providing cable connections to their customers. One of the cables passes over the house of Mr. Vasanth Bhat., He is not a customer of the Network Company. The cable is neither attached to his house nor to any projection thereof.
It is at a distance of 20 ft above the terrace of Mr. Bhat's two-storied house. Because of the cable, Mr. Bhat's son Sachin is unable to fly a kite from the terrace. Mr. Bhat requested the Network Company to change the position of the cable. But the company did not bother to change it. One evening, Mr. Bhat out the cable and cleared the airspace above his house. The Network Company suffered a loss of about ₹ 1000. They bring legal action against Mr. Bhat for recovery of loss suffered. DECISION:
