Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Which law introduced the system of dyarchy in India during the British reign?
विकल्प
The Government of India Act,1858
The Government of India Act, 1909
The Government of India Act, 1919
The Government of India Act, 1935
Advertisements
उत्तर
The Government of India Act, 1919
Explanation:
The Government of India Act 1858 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, Its provisions called for the liquidation of the British East India Company (who had up to this point been ruling British India under the auspices of Parliament) and the transference of its functions to the British Crown. The Government of India Act 1909 The Indian Councils Act 1909, commonly known as the Morley-Minto Reforms, was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that brought about a limited increase in the involvement of Indians in the governance of British India. The Government of India Act (1919) Dyarchy, also spelled diarchy, the system of double government introduced for the provinces of British India. Government of India Act 1935. This act ended the system of dyarchy introduced by GOI Act 1919 and provided for the establishment of a Federation of India to be made up of provinces of British India and some or all of the Princely states.
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:
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: Nuisance as a tort (civil wrong) means an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it.
FACT: During the scarcity of onions, long queues "'Nt?l'e made outside the defendant's shop who has a license to sell fruits and vegetables used to sell only l Kg, of onion per ration card The queues extended on to the highway and also causes some obstruction to the neighboring shops. The neighboring shopkeepers brought an action for nuisance against the defendant.
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: Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud unless the circumstances of the case ate such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence is, in itself, equivalent to speech.
FACT: A sells, by auction, to B, a horse which A knows to be unsound. A says nothing to B about the horse's unsoundness.
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.
A makes a contract with B to beat his business competitor. This is an example of
In social agreements usual presumption is
The communication of a proposal is complete when it comes to
A tender is
From the four answers given, shade the appropriate answer.
A contract contravening public policy is void. There cannot be a general definition of public policy. Which of the following is a correct derivation from the above?
