Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
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 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: According to the law of trade unions in India, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be maintainable in any civil court against any registered trade union or any officer or member thereof in respect of any act done in contemplation or in furtherance of a trade dispute.
Facts: Soloman, the Secretary of a registered Trade Union took a loan from a bank for the higher education of his daughter. Soon after completing the course, she was married to an NRI Engineer. Solomon did not repay the loan. The Bank demanded the payments from Soloman and warned him that the Bank will take suitable legal action against him. Identify the legal position in this regard.
Options
Soloman did not use the loan amount for his use and hence, no action can be initiated against him.
The Bank cannot initiate any action against Soloman as he is the Secretary of a Registered Trade Union.
The Bank can recover the loan amount from the Trade Union as Soloman is the Secretary of the Union.
The Bank can file a suit for recovery of the loan amount against Soloman as he took the loan for a personal purpose and in such case, no immunity will work.
Advertisements
Solution
The Bank can file a suit for recovery of the loan amount against Soloman as he took the loan for a personal purpose and in such case, no immunity will work.
Explanation:
The Bank can file a suit for recovery of the loan amount against Soloman as he took the loan for a personal purpose and in such case, no immunity will work. The Trade Union Act does not provide any immunity in any civil court to either a registered Trade Union or its officer against non-repayment of a personal loan.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle: Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the decision of a person to enter into a contract is not a fraud.
Facts: A sells to B (A‘s daughter who is a minor) a horse which A knows to be unsound. A says nothing to B about the unsoundness of the horse.
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer.
Principle: The object of an agreement is lawful unless it is forbidden by law; is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; is fraudulent; involves or implies injury to the person or property of another person; the court regards it as immoral; it is opposed to public policy.
Factual Situation: The BCCI decided to hold an auction to sell IPL teams. 12 bidders registered for the auction. Unknown to the BCCI, these 12 bidders had entered into a contract that they would not bid more than a certain amount.
A void agreement means
LEGAL PRINCIPLE Where the parents of a minor child due to their negligence allow the child an opportunity to commit a tort, the parents are liable.
FACTUAL SITUATION The father supplied an airgun to his son who was about to turn 18 next month. After some complaints of mischief. the father took the gun away and placed it in a corner of their storeroom which was used by the family to store surplus and other unnecessary stuff. The son took it out of the store and shot A. A sued his father. Is the father liable? DECISION:
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer.
Principle: The owner of a land is entitled to the column of air space above the surface ad infinitum. But, the right is restricted to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and employment of his land, and the structure on it.
Factual Situation: A had constructed a single-storeyed house on a corner site. He had no intention of building an additional floor. B his neighbour, who ran an internet parlour got a hoarding made, which protruded over A's house at a height of around 6 feet above the terrace. A sues B for trespass.
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by factual situations. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer.
A sent a letter to B stating that he was willing to sell to B, 10 bags of rice at ₹20/- each. B wrote a letter to A accepting the offer and posted it.
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer.
Principle: Contractual liability is completely irrelevant to the existence of liability in tort (civil wrong).
Facts: X purchased a bottle of ginger-beer from a retailer. As she consumed more than 3/4 of the contents of the bottle, she found a decomposed remains of a snail in the bottle. After seeing the remains of a snail, she fell sick on the thought of what she consumed. She sued the manufacturer of the beer for negligence, though there is no contractual duty on the part of the manufacturer.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A and B started a partnership firm for providing vehicle repair services. C approached the firm for getting his car repaired and noticed that only B was present in the office. C informed the problem and B started repairing the car. While B was repairing, he filled petrol instead of oil in the engine. As a consequence, a small blast occurred and damaged the car. Now, C sued both A and B for the damage so caused. Decide.
DECISION:
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Every agreement, by which any party is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, is void to that extent.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Feroz and Pinto entered into an agreement for rendering certain services. As per the prevailing law, the agreement may be enforced either at Jaipur or Udaipur. The agreement itself, however, specifies that upon breach, the parties can only approach courts at Jaipur. Feroz breaches the contract and Pinto, being a resident of Udaipur. would like to sue him in Udaipur. He challenged the validity of the clause.
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.
Legal Principle: An unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it is a nuisance in tort. The fact that the plaintiff "came to the nuisance" by knowingly acquiring property in the vicinity of the defendant's premises is not a defense to nuisance. However, an act cannot be a nuisance if it is imperatively demanded by public convenience. Thus, when the public welfare requires it, a nuisance may be permitted for special purposes.
Factual Situation: D owned and occupied an estate about two miles from RAF Wittering, an operational and training base for Harrier Jump Jets. D claimed that they suffered severe noise disturbance every time the Harrier pilots carried out training circuits: an average of 70 times a day. D alleged that the noise nuisance constituted a very serious interference with their enjoyment of their land. D instituted judicial proceedings against the defendants, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), damages amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000.
The MoD denied liability and raised the defence that the Harrier training was undertaken for the public benefit and that they had prescriptive right over the land as D had bought their property at a time when RAF Wittering was already established so he cannot claim compensation as he already knew about the existence of RAF Wittering near his property.
Decision:
