Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
The question consists of two statements, one labelled as principle and other as Fact. You are to exa.mine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.
PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offense which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
FACT: A takes his son B who is three years old, for a bath to the well. He throws his son inside the well so that he could have a good bath. After 10 minutes he also jumped in the well to take a bath and take his son out of the well. Both were rescued by the villagers but his son was found dead.
विकल्प
A has committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder
A has committed murder
A has done no offence as he can plead the defence of unsoundness of mind
A's family should be responsible for this incident to let him to take child to the well
Advertisements
उत्तर
A has done no offence as he can plead the defence of unsoundness of mind
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
In this Question, the problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question.
Rules
A. The act of using threats to force another person to enter into a contract is called coercion.
B. The act of using influence on another and taking undue advantage of that person is called undue influence.
C. In order to prove coercion, the existence of the use of threat, in any form and manner, is necessary. If coercion is proved, the person who has been so threatened can refuse to abide by the contract.
D. In order to prove undue-influence, there has to be a pre-existing relationship between the parties to a contract. The relationship has to be of such a nature that one is in a position to influence the other. If it is proven that there has been undue influence, the party who has been so influenced need not enforce the contract or perform his obligations under the contract.
Facts:
Aadil and Baalu are best friends. Aadil is the son of a multi-millionaire business person, Chulbal who owns Maakhan Pharmaceuticals. Baalu is the son of a bank employee, Dhanraj. One day, Aadil is abducted from his office by Baalu. Chulbul receives a phone call from Dhamaj telling him that if he does not make Baalu the CEO of NIaakhan Pharmaceuticals, Aadil will be killed. Chulbul reluctantly agrees to make the Baalu the CEO. Subsequently, Chulbul and Baalu sign an employment contract. However, as soon as Aadil is released and safely returns home, Chulbul tells Baala that he shall not enforce the employment contract. Baalu and Dhanraj are not sure as to what is to be done next.
In the above fact situation:
In this Question problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question. In answering the following question, you should not rely on any rule(s) except the rule(s) that are supplied for problem. Further, you should not assume any fact other than 'those stated in the problem. The aim is to test your ability to properly apply a rule to a given set of facts, even when the result is absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the aim to test any knowledge of law you may already possess.
Rule A: An owner of land has the right to use the land in any manner he or she desires. The owner of land also owns the space above and the depths below it.
Rule B: Rights above the laud extend only to the point they are essential to any use or enjoyment of land.
Rule C: An owner cannot claim infringement of her property right if the space above his or her land is put to reasonable use by someone else at a height at which the owner would have to reasonable use of it and it does not affect the reasonable enjoyment of his or her land.
Shazia's case: Shazia owns a single storeyed house in Ahmedabad which has been in her family for more than 75 years. The foundation of the house cannot support another floor and Shazia has no intention of demolishing her family home to construct a bigger building. Javed and Sandeep are business partners and own three-story houses on either side of Shazia's house. Javed and Sandeep are also Ahmedabad's main distributors for a major soft drinks company. They have erected a huge hoarding advertising their products, with the ends supported on their roofs but the hoarding also passes over Shazia's house at 70 feet and casts a permanent shadow on her terrace. Shazia decides to hoist a huge Indian flag, going up to 75 feet, on her roof. She files a case, asking the court to order Javed and Sandeep to remove the hoarding for all these reasons.
Applying only Rules A and B to Shazia's case, you would decide:
Which of the following statements in regard to the Directive Principles of State Policy is correct?
Mark the best option:
Facts: Ganga asked Ram to send him 15 bottles of groundnut oil at once. Ram wrote back that he would send the bottles in15-20 days. Ganga did not reply and ultimately about a month and a half later Ram sent the goods. Ganga refused to accept the goods and said that there was no contract. Ram sued him in court. Will Ram succeed in his case?
Principle:
- In order to convert a proposal into a promise, the acceptance should be absolute and unqualified.
- If there is an offer and acceptance between parties a contract is formed.
Mark the best option:
Principle: Agreements, the meaning of which is not certain, or capable of being made certain, are void.
Facts: Karthik, a physician, enters into an agreement with Talreja to rent from him a flat for setting up a clinic at Rupees fifteen thousand p.m. and Rupees two thousand p.m. extra if the flat proves lucky for him. A month after Karthik started using the flats in his clinic; he was appointed as visiting faculty by one of the medical colleges. Talreja claims Rupees seventeen thousand p.m.as rent from the next month onwards but Karthik refuses to pay him the amount claimed by him.
Valid contracts
A promised to marry B. Later on B died. This contract of marriage
As per section 2(e) of the Indian Contract Act, “Every Promise and every set of promise forming the consideration for each other is a/an
The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to
A contract is made where:
