Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: Property consists of a right to possess, right to use, right to alienate and right to exclude others. A sale is complete when the property gets transferred from the seller to the buyer.
Facts: 'A‘ sold his car to 'B‘ B requested A to keep the car in his care on behalf B for one month. A agreed.
विकल्प
The sale of the complete.
The sale of a car is not complete.
The sale will be completed when B keeps the car in his own care.
The sale will be automatically completed after the expiry of one month.
Advertisements
उत्तर
The sale of car is complete.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
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: Whoever finds an unattended object can keep it unless the true owner claims that object. This does not affect the property owner's right to the ownership of the property on which the object is found. The right to ownership of a property does not include the right to ownership of unattended objects on that property.
Facts: Elizabeth is the CEO of a global management services company in Chennai and is on her way to Ranchi to deliver the convocation address at India's leading business school on the outskirts of Ranchi. Flying business class on Dolphin Airlines, she is entitled to use the lounge owned by the airline in Chennai Airport while waiting for her flight. She finds a diamond earring on the floor of the lounge and gives it to the staff of Dolphin Airlines expressly stating that in the event of nobody claiming the ear-ring within six months, she would claim it back. The airline sells the ear-ring after eight months and Elizabeth files a case to recover the value of the ear-ring from the airline when she is informed about its sale. As a judge you would order that:
One of the reasons for recusal of a Judge is that litigants/the public might entertain a reasonable apprehension about his impartiality. As Lord Chief Justice Hewart said: "It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." And therefore, in order to uphold the credibility of the integrity institution, Judge recuses from hearing the case. A Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, while assuming Office, takes an oath as prescribed under Schedule III to the Constitution of India, that: "… I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws." Called upon to discharge the duties of the Office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, it is only desirable, if not proper, that a Judge, for any unavoidable reason like some pecuniary interest, affinity or adversity with the parties in the case, direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the litigation, family directly involved in litigation on the same issue elsewhere, the Judge being aware that he or someone in his immediate family has an interest, financial or otherwise that could have a substantial bearing as a consequence of the decision in the litigation, etc., to recuse himself from the adjudication of a particular matter. No doubt, these examples are not exhaustive. The simple question is, whether the adjudication by the Judge concerned, would cause reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonably informed litigant and fair-minded public as to his impartiality. Being an institution whose hallmark is transparency, it is only proper that the Judge discharging high and noble duties, at least broadly indicate the reasons for recusing from the case so that the litigants or the well-meaning public may not entertain any misunderstanding. Once reasons for recusal are indicated, there will not be any room for attributing any motive for the recusal. To put it differently, it is part of his duty to be accountable to the Constitution by upholding it without fear or favour, affection or ill- will. Therefore, I am of the view that it is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one's oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a Judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case.
Suppose a situation arises where a recusal by a Judge is used as a means to allow a party to choose its own bench, will it be axiomatic from the passage that such recusal is proper, morally or/and constitutionally?
Mark the best option:
Five Year Plans in India are finally approved by ____________.
Mark the best option:
Shri M. Ananthasayanam Ayyangar was the first _________ of Lok Sabha.
How many contents are there in Panchayati Raj System?
Which one of the following is the correct chronological order of the formation of the following states as full Statehood?
To organise village panchayats is enumerated in which of the following Article?
Which of the following Article of the constitution dealt with the establishment of the Nagar Panchayats, Municipal councils and Municipal corporations?
Affirmative action connotes:
I. Measures taken by the state to help the socially disadvantaged groups
II. Positive discrimination
III. Strict quotas for the socially and educationally backward class in school/college admissions and jobs. Which of the above mentioned is true?
The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.
Principle: All citizens shall have the Fundamental Right to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. But reasonable restrictions on the exercise of such rights can be imposed by law in the interest of the general public.
Facts: A large number of persons had been carrying on the business of dyeing and printing in Rajkot area for the last 25 years providing employment to about 30000 families. From these businesses ' places, untreated dirty water was being discharged on the roads thereby causing damage to the public health. A notice, therefore, was given to close this business to necessary measures to protect public health as provided under the environmental statutes were taken by those businessmen.
