Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Consists of legal proposition(s)/ principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this Section. In other words, in answering these questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every question.
Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest in the study of law, research aptitude, and problem-solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of the law.
Therefore, to answer a question, the principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.
Principle: When a person makes such a statement that lowers another person's reputation in the estimation of other persons, it is liable for committing defamation.
Facts: 'A' writes a letter to 'B' in which he uses abusive language against 'B' and also states that 'B' is a dishonest person. 'A' put the letter in a sealed envelope and delivered it to 'B'.
पर्याय
'A' has committed a moral wrong
'A' has not committed defamation
'A' has not committed a moral wrong
'A' has committed defamation
Advertisements
उत्तर
'A' has not committed defamation
Explanation:
'A' has only written abuses on a letter and puts it in a sealed envelope delivered only to 'B'. The statement did not lower the reputation of 'B' in the estimation of others. There is no defamation.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: Use of criminal force intentionally knowing that it would cause or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the person against whom force is used, is an offense.
Facts: X, a renowned social worker who had launched a movement for the liberation of women, pull up a Muslim women‘s veil in public in good faith without her consent causing annoyance to her.
Mark the best option:
Fact: Ganesh had a ferocious dog as his pet. The dog used to terrorize people in the neighborhood by attacking the pet animals. One day the dog started attacking Bipasha’s cat on the road and followed the cat into Bipasha’s house and continued attacking her cat. Her cat was seriously wounded and was bleeding. Bipasha made several attempts to chase the dog away but it was of no use, so she got hold of a kitchen knife and inflicted a severe wound on the dog’s body. After this, the dog ran off. The dog subsequently died because of the wound. Ganesh sued Bipasha for damages saying that she should have called him for help.
Principle:
- Every person has a right to defend his own person, property or possession against unlawful harm.
- The person may use reasonable force in order to protect his person, property or possession
- However, the force employed should be proportionate to the apprehended danger.
Mark the best option:
Principle: A contract is said to be induced by "undue influence" where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other. Such a contract is void.
Facts: Jasmeet is the owner of a small scale unit manufacturing detergent soap and powder. To add to the capacity of the unit he wanted to purchase some new machinery worth Rupees fifteen lacs for which he approached a bank. Taking into account the financial position of Jasmeet and a higher risk of default associated with lending to a small scale unit; the bank manager agreed to lend the sum on 18.5% interest compounded annually even as the interest rate at which the bank lent to business houses was 12.5% on an average; the sum was to be repaid in five years. Jasmeet paid the first two installments but refused to pay any further installments citing the aforementioned principle.
Decide on the question of the validity of the contract.
Negligence involves:
What is the Compensation Act 2006 s 1 has what purpose...
The railway authorities negligently allowed a train to be overcrowded. In consequence, a legitimate passenger Mr. X got his pocket picked. Choose the appropriate answer.
PRINCIPLE Trespass is the unauthorized entry through the person or tangible object into the property of another. The rights of property exist on the surface, aerially and in the subterrain.
FACTS Kumari and Shravan lived in houses interspersed by the plot of Shantanu. Kumari and Shravan set-up a walkie talkie connection by setting up their transmitte~s facing each other. When Shantanu came to know about the arrangement, he filed a suit of trespass stating that the same was a case of trespass as signals could reach each other only by crossing his plot.
In Law of Torts,
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: Vicarious liability is the liability of the Master or Principal for the tort committed by his servant or agent, provided the tort is committed in the course of employment. The Master or Principal is not liable for private wrongs of the servant/agent.
Facts: 'X' hands over some cash money at his house to 'Y', who is his (X's) neighbour and is also cashier in a bank, to be deposited in A's account in the bank. Instead of depositing the money, 'Y' misappropriates it.
Which of the following statements depicts the correct legal position in this given situation?
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
1. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful, and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
2. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would be likely to injure his neighbor.
3. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a prerequisite of liability in actions of nuisance
Facts:
Bharat Sugar Ltd. operated a sugar refinery on the bank of the river Ravi. They had a jetty from which raw sugar would be offloaded from barges and refined sugar would be taken. The sugar would be taken by larger vessels and then transferred to smaller barges to enable them to get through the shallow waters. As part of development, Bharat Sugar Ltd. wished to construct a new jetty and dredge the water to accommodate the larger vessels. At the same time, the State was constructing new ferry terminals. The design of the ferry terminals was such that it caused the siltation of the channels. After using the channels for a short while, Bharat Sugars’ larger vessels were no longer able to use them. Further dredging at the cost of ₹ 7,50,000 was required to make the channel and jetties usable by the vessels. Bharat Sugar Ltd. brought an action in nuisance to recover the cost of the extra dredging. Is the State liable?
