Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Legal Principle: When there is an infringement of the legal right of a person, he gets a right to sue the wrongdoer for remedy irrespective of any actual loss caused.
Fact Situation: Saroj is prevented from voting at an election. The candidate she intended to vote for, wins the election.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
पर्याय
Saroj’s legal right has been violated and she can sue the persons who prevented her from voting
Since Saroj‘s candidate has won the election, her rights are not violated and she cannot sue.
Since Saroj is not the candidate, her rights are not violated if she is prevented from voting.
This principle is not at all applicable in this case.
Advertisements
उत्तर
Saroj’s legal right has been violated and she can sue the persons who prevented her from voting
Explanation:
Infringement. The encroachment, breach, or violation of a right, law, regulation, or contract. The term is most frequently used in reference to the invasion of rights secured by Copyright, patent, or trademark. Right endowed upon by law is called legal right. We all have rights and at the same time, we need to ensure that we do not take away or violate someone else's rights. This is our legal duty. When we fail to perform or incorrectly perform our legal duties, we end up violating someone else's rights and in turn commit a tort. Thus in the case presented before us Saroj's right to vote was infringed and whether or not any damage was caused still she has the right to sue the wrongdoer.
Hence "Saroj’s legal right has been violated and she can sue the persons who prevented her from voting" is correct.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: Death caused by a rash or negligent act of a person is an offence.
Facts: X was driving his SUV car on a lonely road leading to a forest at 160 km per hour. Suddenly, someone appears from the forest on the road and in the resultant accident, the car hits the commuter causing his death.
The Government of India is planning to open Rail Link between Sealdah to Devpura. Devpura is located in –
According to the Human Development Report 2006, India has acquired 126th place in HDI ranking which is. than that of last year.
Mark the best option:
Principle: An occupier is not normally liable to a trespasser except in respect of willful act intended to cause harm or done with reckless disregard.
Facts: Jaspal, a richman of the locality had kept a ferocious dog to guard his house. He strictly instructed all his servants not to go near that dog and there was a special attender who was to take care of the dog. There was a prominent board warning the visitors about the ferocious dog. One day, a twelve-year-old boy playing in the neighborhood, running after his ball got into the house. The dog attacked him and killed him. Jaspal was sued for damages.
Aaron points a gun at Bridget and threatens to shoot her. Aaron knows that the gun is not loaded but Bridget does not. Which of the following most accurately states the likely outcome if Bridget sues Aaron alleging assault?
Torts are grounded in the concept of
Unliquidated damage stands for
Rules:
A. A person is an employee of another if the mode and the manner in which he or she carries out his work is subject to control and supervision of the latter.
B. An employer is required to provide compensation to his or her employees for any injury caused by an accident arising in the course of employment. The words ‘in the course of the employment’ mean in the course of the work which the employee is contracted to do and which is incidental to it.
Facts:
Messers. Zafar Abidi and Co. (Company) manufactures bidis with the help of persons known as ‘pattadrs’. The pattadars are supplied tobacco and leaves by the Company and are required to roll them into bidis and bring the bidis back to the Company. The pattadars are free to roll the bidis either in the factory or anywhere else they prefer. They are not bound to attend the factory for any fixed number of bidis. The Company verifies whether the bidis adhere to the specified instructions or not pays the pattadars on the basis of the number of bids that are found to be of right quality. Aashish Mathew is one of the pattadars of the Company. He was hit by a car just outside the precinct of the factory while he was heading to have lunch in a nearby food-stall. Aashish Mathew has applied for compensation from the Company.
If the pattadars were compulsorily required to work in the factory for a minimum number of hours every day, then the Company would have been liable to pay compensation to Aashish Mathew if the latter:
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: Whoever, unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to he, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be guilty of a negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.
Facts: 'K', a person, knowing that he is suffering from Cholera, travels by a train without informing the railway officers of his condition.
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?
