Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Principle: Civil Suit can be filed where the defendant resides or carries on business or where the cause of action arises.
Facts: An agreement is signed and executed in New Delhi between A and B for the supply of goods wherein B is to supply goods to be delivered at New Dehli to a client of A. A carries on business at Haryana and B carries on Business in UP. The civil suit by 'B‘ for payment of consideration can be filed against 'A‘ at
Options
Only at New Delhi, where the cause of action arises
Only at Haryana where 'A‘ carries on business
Only at UP where 'B‘ carries on business
At Haryana or at New Delhi
Advertisements
Solution
At Haryana or at New Delhi
Explanation:
Civil suit can be filed either at Haryana or New Delhi. This is based on the principle that Civil Suit can be filed where the defendant resides or carries on business or where the cause of action arises. The defendant resides or does business in Haryana and the cause of action has arisen in New Delhi. Therefore, a civil suit can be filed at either of the places.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle: A condition to a contract can also be complied with after the happening of the event to which such a condition is attached.
Facts: 'A' promises to pay Rs. 5000 to 'B' on the condition that he shall marry with the consent of 'C', 'D' and 'E'. 'B' marries without the consent of 'C', 'D' and 'E', but obtains their consent after the marriage.
Principle: Consent is a good defence for civil action in tort. But consent must include both knowledge of risk and assumption of risk, i.e, readiness to bear harm.
Facts: A lady passenger was aware that the driver of the cab, in which she opted to travel was little intoxicated. The cab met with an accident and lady got injured.
Mark the best option:
Principles:
- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threats, commits criminal intimidation.
- A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interesting, is covered within the above provision.
Facts: Monty is a tenant in the Sharmas' house, living on the top floor while the Sharmas occupy the ground floor. However, he is always irregular in paying the rent. The Sharmas' are tired of asking him to pay on time and his manners have deteriorated over time. What started as mere excuses snowballed into name-calling, until one day, Monty threatened to come with his friends and vandalize the Sharmas' house, if they complained or took action against him.
Will Monty be guilty of criminal intimidation?
Defamation involves:
Negligence involves:
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 Principles:
1. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do
2. Defendant’s duty of care depends of the reasonable foreseeability of injury which may be caused to the plaintiff on breach of duty.
Factual situation: The defendants employees of the Municipal Corporation opened a manhole in the street and in the evening left the manhole open an covered it by a canvass shelter, unattended and surrounded by warning lamps. The plaintiff, an eight years old boy, took one of the lamps into the shelter and was playing with it there when he stumbled over it and fell into the manhole. A violent explosion followed and the plaintiff suffered burn injuries. The defendants are 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.
Principle: Nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it. If the interference is 'direct', the wrong is trespass; whereas, if the interference is 'consequential', it amounts to a nuisance.
Facts: 'A' plants a tree on his land. However, he allows of its branches to project over the land of 'B'. Which of the following derivations 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.
Legal principle: A master shall be liable for the acts of his servants done in the course of employment.
Factual situation: PUL, a public sector undertaking, is operating a number of bus services for its employees in Pune. These buses are quite distinct in their appearance and carry the board “for PUL employees only”. M, a villager from a neighbouring state, was waiting for a regular bus in one of the bus stops in Pune. A bus belonging to PUL happened to stop nearby and a number of people got into the bus. M, without realizing that it was a PUL bus, got into the bus and soon thereafter, the bus met with an accident due to driver’s negligence. M, along with several others, was injured in the accident. M seeks to file a suit against PUL claiming damages. DECISION:
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
1. The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
3. Volenti non-fit injuria is defence to action in negligence.
Facts:
In a sad incident, 95 fans of a Football club died in a stampede in the Nehru Stadium. The court has decided that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the Police in permitting too many supporters to crowd in one part of the stadium. Now, a suit is filed by Harman and several other people against the Commissioner of State Police. Harman and the other claimants had relatives who were caught up in the Nehru Stadium disaster. The disaster was broadcast on live television, where several claimants alleged, they had witnessed friends and relatives die. Others were present in the stadium or had heard about the events in other ways. All claimed damages for the psychiatric harm they suffered as a result. Determine whether, for the purposes of establishing liability in negligence, those who suffer purely psychiatric harm from witnessing an event at which they are not physically present are sufficiently proximate for a duty to be owed, and thus can be said to be reasonably within the contemplation of the tortfeasor?
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
The tort of negligent misstatement is defined as an inaccurate statement made honestly but carelessly usually in the form of advice given by a party with special skill/knowledge to a party that doesn’t possess this skill or knowledge.
Facts:
X and Y Co. were advertising agents placing contracts on behalf of a client on credit terms, X and Y Co. would be personally liable should the client default. To protect themselves, the X and Y asked their bankers to obtain a credit reference from K and L, the client’s bankers. The reference (given both orally and then in writing) was given gratis and was favorable, but also contained an exclusion clause to the effect that the information was given ‘without responsibility on the part of this Bank or its officials’. X and Y relied upon this reference and subsequently suffered financial loss when the client went into liquidation. X and Y sued K and L Co. for negligence, claiming that the information was given negligently and was misleading. K and L argued there was no duty of care owed regarding the statements. Decide.
