Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: Master is liable for the acts of his servant done in the course of his duties.
Facts: X hired an employee Y in his construction business. Y was the property in-charge who received construction material and gave receipts for the material received by him. Z claimed payment for cement supplied to X which was duly received by Y. X denied the payment on the ground that he has only received half of the material and the balance was is utilized by the employee Y.
पर्याय
X is liable for the entire amount
X is liable for the part amount only i.e. for payment of the cost of half of the material
X is not liable for the misconduct/embezzlement of his employee
Z can claim the balance payment only from Y
Advertisements
उत्तर
X is liable for the entire amount
Explanation:
X is liable for the entire amount because the principle clearly states “Master is liable for the acts of his servant done in the course of his duties.” Therefore, it is clear that X will have to bear the consequences of Y’s misdeed done while in the employment of X.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
One of the reasons for recusal of a Judge is that litigants/the public might entertain a reasonable apprehension about his impartiality. As Lord Chief Justice Hewart said: "It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." And therefore, in order to uphold the credibility of the integrity institution, Judge recuses from hearing the case. A Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, while assuming Office, takes an oath as prescribed under Schedule III to the Constitution of India, that: "… I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws." Called upon to discharge the duties of the Office without fear or favor, affection or ill-will, it is only desirable, if not proper, that a Judge, for any unavoidable reason like some pecuniary interest, affinity or adversity with the parties in the case, direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the litigation, family directly involved in litigation on the same issue elsewhere, the Judge being aware that he or someone in his immediate family has an interest, financial or otherwise that could have a substantial bearing as a consequence of the decision in the litigation, etc., to recuse himself from the adjudication of a particular matter. No doubt, these examples are not exhaustive. The simple question is, whether the adjudication by the Judge concerned, would cause reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonably informed litigant and fair-minded public as to his impartiality. Being an institution whose hallmark is transparency, it is only proper that the Judge discharging high and noble duties, at least broadly indicate the reasons for recusing from the case so that the litigants or the well-meaning public may not entertain any misunderstanding. Once reasons for recusal are indicated, there will not be any room for attributing any motive for the recusal. To put it differently, it is part of his duty to be accountable to the Constitution by upholding it without fear or favour, affection or ill- will. Therefore, I am of the view that it is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one's oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a Judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case.
If a Judge recused from hearing the review petition of four death row convicts in the gang rape-murder case after finding the name of his/her nephew, in the orders of the review petitions. Is the recusal consistent with the essence of recusal provided in the passage?
The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Assertion (A) and other as Reason (R).
You are to examine the two statements carefully and select the best option.
Assertion: We the people of India. having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Democratic Republic.
Reason: A republic will ensure we have a head of state that is democratically elected and accountable to voters. As a result, the head of state will be a more effective constitutional safeguard.
Which of the following became the first Viceroy of India by the Government of India Act, 1858?
Which of the following become the 15th State of Indian Union?
A person of India origin who is ordinarily resident in India for seven years before making
is eligible for
Which one of the following Article grants protection to both religious minorities as well as linguistic minorities?
In the question given below are two statements labelled as Assertion (A) and Reason (R). In the context of the two statements, which of the following is correct?
Assertion (A): The Indian Constitution recognises the supremacy of the judiciary.
Reason (R): The question as to what constitutes a reasonable restriction on Fundamental Rights is to be determined by the Court of Law.
The concept of judicial review has been borrowed from the Constitution of
The President of India is elected by an electoral college consisting of
Ms. Usha wants to file a suit against Bhagyalaxmi Theatre praying for a permanent injunction (stay order) restraining the theatre from running the film named “Jai Santoshi Maa”. Her contention is that the film hurt her religious feelings and sentiments as Goddess Saraswati, Laxmi and Parvati were depicted as jealous and were ridiculed.
