Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Legal Principle: One of the principles of ‘Natural Justice’ states that, “No person shall be a judge in his own cause”.
Facts: A, a driver of B, a Branch Manager of ABC Bank was caught, suspecting theft, in the bank premises. The Bank management instituted an enquiry and made B the enquiry officer.
Which of the following statements is correct?
पर्याय
As B is a Bank Manager and not a judge, this principle is inapplicable.
Since the suspected theft was on the bank premises, the manager is the only competent person to enquire about. Hence, the principle is not applicable.
Since B is the employer of A, B should not be conducting the enquiry on the basis of the given principle.
The principle will be applicable, only if the theft committed by A was in relation to the car.
Advertisements
उत्तर
Since B is the employer of A, B should not be conducting the inquiry on the basis of the given principle.
Explanation:
Nemo iudex in causa sua (or Nemo iudex in sua causa) is a Latin phrase that means, literally, "no-one should be a judge in his own case." It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest. In the case presented before us the person who is stealing, his employee is made the judge of this theft naturally he will not hold his boss guilty so according to the above-given principle. Option 'Since B is the employer of A, B should not be conducting the inquiry on the basis of the given principle'. is correct
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: Everyone has the right of private defense to defend his body and property by use of reasonable force unless that person had time to have recourse to the protection of public authorities.
Facts: X receives information at 5.00 pm that Y along with few friends are planning to burn his crop at midnight which is ready to be harvested. He does not inform the village Police Station which was just one kilometer away. He gathers his family members and directs them to collect some weapons in the form of swords and lathis to protect his field/crop. At around 11.00 pm Y and his aides attack the crop and a severe fight ensues wherein Y is seriously injured.
"No action lies against the Government for injury done to an individual in the course of exercise of its sovereign functions". All of the following actions are covered by the above provision, except
Legal Principle: Negligence is the absence of care by one party which results in some damage to another. Damage is an essential ingredient to constitute a tort of negligence.
Fact Situation: Mistry left his ladder on the public road while unloading it from a truck when he went to open the shutters of his shop. Saini who was riding his motorcycle had to swerve hard to avoid hitting the ladder as he came with speed on the road. Saini fell down but was miraculously not injured.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
When goods are displayed in a shop with a price tag, it is
Andrew throws a baseball towards Barry, with whom he is playing pitch and catch. Andrew’s aim is bad and the ball hits Cassandra, who is walking nearby.
Aaron is the punter on his high school football team. Biff, one of the players on the opposing team, runs into Aaron as he is punting the ball. Aaron is injured. Biff’s team is penalized 15 yards for roughing the kicker. Which of the following most accurately states the likely outcome if Aaron sues Biff in the tort of battery?
What are the remedies provided by the Human Rights Act 1998 are intended to regulate the activities of whom...
Given below is the statement of Legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: ln the employer-employee relationship, the employer is held liable for all the wrongs committed by his employees in the course of employment.
FACTUAL SITUATION: David was employed as a Driver in ABC & Co over the past 15 years and has been appreciated by the General Manager for his hard work and sincerity. He has been rewarded by the company for his accident-free record. David's younger brother wanted to join the same company as a driver. He obtained a Learner's Licence, joined a Driving School and was learning driving during the last three months. He was on the verge of completion of the training and appear for the Driving test. He wanted to have more practice before the test and requested his brother David for using the Company's car for two days. David also allowed him to use the office car for the practice. While he was practicing driving, a truck came from the wrong side, hit the company's car driven by David's brother, which in turn hit a pedestrian and injured him. The pedestrian sues the company for damages.
DECISION:
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: There is no liability in tort in cases of inevitable accidents.
Factual Situation: A stranger takes lift in truck. The truck later meets with an accident due to brake failure. The stranger suffered grievous physical injuries and nervous shock. He filed a suit to claim compensation from the truck's owner. DECISION:
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
1. The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
3. Volenti non-fit injuria is a defence to action in negligence.
Facts:
X purchased a disused cinema with the intention of turning it into a Multiplex. Six weeks after, X entered the building for the first time, it was set on fire by intruders and destroyed. As a result, the adjacent buildings were also affected and damaged. The cinema building was a target for vandals and children who often played there, but X had had no knowledge of previous attempts to start a fire at the cinema buildings. The owners of the adjacent buildings brought an action for negligence against X on grounds that X failed to take reasonable care for the safety of the buildings by not keeping the cinema locked, making regular inspections and employing a caretaker. Decide whether the occupier of a property owes a duty of care to the adjoining occupiers in respect of acts of trespass on his property resulting in damage to the adjoining properties?
