मराठी

Fact: Ramu Cuts Down a Tree on Rinku'S Ground, with the Intention of Dishonestly Tatting the Tree Out of Rinku'S Possession Without Rinku'S Consent. a Could Not Take the Tree Away. - Mathematics

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: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person'S consent moves that property, such tatting is said to commit theft.

FACT: RAMU cuts down a tree on RINKU'S ground, with the intention of dishonestly tatting the tree out of RINKU'S possession without RINKU'S consent. A could not take the tree away.

पर्याय

  • RAMU can be prosecuted for theft

  • RAMU cannot be prosecuted for theft

  • RAMU can be prosecuted for attempt to theft

  • RAMU has neither committed theft nor attempt to commit theft

MCQ
Advertisements

उत्तर

RAMU can be prosecuted for theft

shaalaa.com
Indian Contract Act (Entrance Exams)
  या प्रश्नात किंवा उत्तरात काही त्रुटी आहे का?
2014-2015 (May) Set 1

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-storey houses on either side of Shazia's house. Javed and Sandeep are also Ahmedabad's main distributors for a major soft drinke 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 Rule B to Shazia's case, you would decide in favour of  


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: A contract would be invalid and unlawful if the contract is for any immoral or illegal purpose.

Facts: P, was a young and helpless widow, living on the pavement. R, a neighbor gave her a house, registered in her name, on the condition that she should allow R to keep his smuggled goods and drugs in her house. After the registration was done, according to the condition in the contract, R’s agents went to keep some packets in her house, she refused. R told her the condition under which the house was given to her. She still refused. Is P justified in her action?


Mark the best option:
Principle: A contract the consent to which is induced by a false account or idea can be avoided by the deceived party.

Facts: Jatin approached Martin to purchase a plot of land from him. Martin was under the impression that Jatin required the land for constructing a house for himself and therefore, told Jatin that a real estate group was about to start a residential project in the vicinity of the plot; though he was himself doubtful of the same. Jatin, however, wanted to purchase the plot as he had been instructed by his elder brother to do so. Jatin entered into a contract to purchase the plot for a sum of Rupees thirty-five lacs and a few days later he came to know that the information given to him by Martin in respect of the residential project was false.

What should be Jatin do next?


Which law introduced the system of dyarchy in India during the British reign?


In agreements of a purely domestic nature, the intention of the parties to create a legal relationship is


An agreement consists of reciprocal promises between at least


Which of the following is false with respect to minors entering a contract?


A contract in which, under the terms of a contract, one or both the parties have still to perform their obligations in the future is known as


The offer must be ..............


Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×