Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Legal Principle: ‘ Audi alteram partem’ is a Latin phrase which means ‘hear the other side’. It is the principle that no person should be judged without a fair hearing.
Fact Situation: Sanjay, in Delhi, is accused of theft and brought before the Court. The magistrate discovers that Sanjay is mute.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Options
The principle is not applicable to Sanjay since he is mute.
The principle is applicable to Sanjay even though he cannot speak since he can be asked to write down his defence.
The Magistrate has to take all measures to understand what Sanjay has to convey about the accusation against him.
Since it is a Latin principle it is not applicable in India.
Advertisements
Solution
The Magistrate has to take all measures to understand what Sanjay has to convey about the accusation against him.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle: Copyright law protects only work. 'Work' means cinematographic film but does not include performance by an actor in a cinematographic film.
Facts: Alia Bhatt acted in a movie.
Directions: Read the statement and on the basis of that, choose the most appropriate course of action(s) given below the statement.
Statement: Most of those who study in premier Medical colleges in India migrate to developed nations for better prospects in their professional pursuits.
Courses of Action:
I. All the students joining these colleges should be asked to sign a bond at the time of admission to the effect that they will remain in India at least for ten years after they complete their medical education.
II. All those students who desire to settle in the developed nations should be asked to pay the entire cost of their education which the government subsidised.
Who heads the four members Committee appointed to study the Centre-State relations especially the changes took place since Sarkaria Commission
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
- 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.
- The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
- A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour.
- The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance.
Factual Situation: M G Ltd. was constructing Crystal Heights, a posh state-of-the-art tower for commercial and residential purposes, in Gurugram. During construction, hundreds of claimants alleged that, in addition to dust and noise caused by the erection of the building, their television signals had been interrupted by the tower. The claimants, some of whom were absolute owners, and many others who were renting, sued in both negligences and in nuisance for the harm done to their amenity by the loss of their television signals. Whether the respondent's action in causing the appellant's television signals to be interrupted with the construction of their tower could constitute a private nuisance?
PRINCIPLE Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is to defame that person.
FACTS In a community, there is a custom of stealing shoes of the bridegroom during the marriage ceremony. The shoes of the bridegroom were stolen by 'Y'. 'A' announced that 'Z' has stolen the shoes. Everyone present in the marriage party started staring at 'Z' with great surprise. 'Z' felt very ashamed.
PRINCIPLE The test as to whether the act done by an officer or agency of the state is a sovereign function or a function done ordinarily is dependent on the fact that an alternative person may also carry out the latter, but the former may only be carried out by the state.
FACTS In a boundary settlement dispute between India and Bangladesh, a certain territory was exchanged in pursuit of a treaty agreement. X's land which lay in the Indian enclave thus got transferred to Bangladesh, which did not recognise his proprietary rights. In a suit against the Indian Government, the likely outcome is
A person is said to be vicariously liable when
Which follow from the application of the undermentioned legal principle:
Legal Principle: The occupier of premises owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitors.
Factual Situation:
Devi who was the owner of a big home with a compound wall, constructed an underground tank to store water. This was covered by jute bags since the work was incomplete. The postman who came inside to deliver registered letter fell into this tank and hurt himself. There was also a box on the outside of the compound wall, where all the mail could be deposited. The injured man filed a suit against Devi claiming compensation.
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: If a person brings anything dangerous on his land which may prove harmful if escapes, then that person must keep it at his peril. If a man fails to do so then he must be made responsible to all-natural consequences of its escape.
Factual situation: A grows poisonous trees on his own land and lets the projection of the branches of his trees on the B’s land. B’s cattle die because of nibbling the poisonous leaves. DECISION:
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?
