Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
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?
Options
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
Solution
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
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principles: A servant is one who is employed to do some work for his employer (master). He is engaged under a contract of service. He works directly under the control and directions of his master. · In general, the master is vicariously liable for those torts (wrongful acts) of his servant which are done by the servant in the course of his employment.
Facts: 'M' appointed 'D' exclusively for the purpose of driving his tourist vehicle. 'M' also appointed 'C' exclusively for the purpose of performing the work of a conductor for the tourist vehicle. During one trip, at the end of the journey, 'C', while 'D' was not on the driver's seat, and apparently for the purpose of turning the vehicle in the right direction for the next journey, drove it through the street at high speed, and negligently injured 'P'.
Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under twelve years of age, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.
Facts: Himesh, 11 years old boy, picks up a gold ring worth Rs 5000/- lying on a table in his friend's house and immediately sells it for Rs 2000/, and misappropriates the money.
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: When a person interferes with peaceful possession of another person without the permission of the person in possession of those premises, commits trespass to land.
Facts: 'T' just walked over the land of 'P' to reach his house as it was a short cut. 'P' had displayed a notice that it is not a thoroughfare. 'P' did not cause any damage to the land.
Who among the following was the first Chief Information Commissioner of India?
Mark the best option:
Principles: 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 law of tort.
Facts: During the scarcity of onions, long queues were made outside the defendant's shop who having a licence to sell fruits and vegetables used to sell only 1 kg of onion per ration card. The queues extended on to the highway and l also caused some obstruction to the neighboring shops. The neighboring shopkeepers filed a suit for nuisance against the defendant. which one of the following decisions will be correct in this suit?
Decide:
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principle: Vicarious liability is when employers are held liable for the torts committed by their employees during the course of employment.
Factual Situation: New Vision School opened a boarding house (Shivaji House) for boys in the year 2000 for the students having behavioral and emotional difficulties. The claimants in the instant case had resided there between 2000 to 2003, being aged 12 to 15 during that time, under the care of a warden, who was in charge of maintaining discipline and the running of the house. The warden lived in the House, with his disabled wife, and together they were the only two members of staff in the House. His duties were ensuring order, in making sure the children went to bed, went to school, engaged in evening activities, and supervising other staff. It had been alleged by some of the boys that the warden had sexually abused them, including inappropriate advances and taking trips alone with them. A criminal investigation took place some ten years later, resulting in the warden being sentenced to seven years imprisonment. Following this, the victims brought an action for personal injury against ~he employers, alleging that they were vicariously liable. Whether the employers of the warden may be held vicariously liable for their employee's intentional sexual abuse of school boys placed under his care?
Suit and nuisance are
Principle: The standard to determine whether a person has been guilty of negligence is the standard of care which, in the given circumstances, a reasonable man could have foreseen.
Facts: The Agricultural University constructed 200 houses for its employees in its premises. Two huge bore wells were sunk and motors were installed. They did not cover the pump rooms properly. A child, 6 years old, from one of the quarters, was playing near the pumphouse. On hearing the noise of the pump, she was curious to see the motor. She touched the motor that was not covered properly and three of her fingers were cut.
Principle: A citizen is expected to take reasonable duty of care while driving on the road and not to cause injuries to any person.
Facts: X, the owner of a car, asked his friend Y to drive the car to his office. As the car was near his (X' s) office, it hit a pedestrian P on account of Y' s negligent driving and injured him seriously. P sued X for damages.
Which one of the following is correct?
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: Trespass to land means direct interference with the possession of land without lawful justification. Trespass could be committed either by a person himself entering the land of another person or doing the same through some tangible object(s).
Facts: 'A' throws some stones upon his neighbor's (B's) premises. Which of the following derivations is correct?
