Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Principle: Foreign judgment binds the parties and is conclusive unless it is obtained by fraud.
Facts: A obtains a judgment from the US court by producing fake documents.
Options
New Suit can be filed in India on the same facts
Judgment can be enforced in US
Judgment can be enforced in India
A new suit can not be filed in India on the same facts
Advertisements
Solution
New Suit can be filed in India on the same facts
Explanation:
The principle and the fact are clear. The principal says the foreign judgment binds the parties unless they have been obtained by fraud. The fact is that A has received foreign judgment, but fraudulently. Therefore, it is not binding on the parties. So, a new suit can be filed.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle: An employer is liable for an injury caused by an employee in the course of employment.
Facts: 'A‘ and 'B‘ were working in a factory as unskilled laborers. A was carrying a basket of stones on his head. B was sitting on the ground. When A crossed B, all of a sudden a stone fell down from the basket and hit B on his head. B died instantaneously.
Principle: The existence of all the alleged facts is relevant whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.
Facts: A, a citizen of England, is accused of committing the murder of B in India by taking part in a conspiracy hatched in England.
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.
When the consent to the contract is caused by coercion, then under Section 19, the contract will be considered as:
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.
Post the threat issued by Monty, the Sharmas' called the welfare officer of their residential colony, Budhdeb to discuss the matter with him. Monty threatened Budhdeb saying that he would expose his deceased father's illegal activities and release his personal numbers etc. on the internet to trouble Budhdeb.
Against whom is Monty guilty of criminal intimidation?
Mark the best option:
Principle: An occupier is not normally liable to a trespasser except in respect of willful act intended to cause harm or done with reckless disregard.
Facts: Jaspal, a richman of the locality had kept a ferocious dog to guard his house. He strictly instructed all his servants not to go near that dog and there was a special attender who was to take care of the dog. There was a prominent board warning the visitors about the ferocious dog. One day, a twelve-year-old boy playing in the neighborhood, running after his ball got into the house. The dog attacked him and killed him. Jaspal was sued for damages.
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principle:
- A person is liable for his negligence when he owed a duty of care to others and commits a breach of that duty·causing injury thereby.
- Valenti non-fit injuria is a defence to negligence.
Factual Situation: Anil and his wife, Reena, were in a shop as customers, where a skylight in the roof of the shop was broken, owing to the negligence of the contractors engaged in repairing the roof, and a portion of the glass fell and struck Anil causing him a severe shock. Reena, who was standing close to him, was not touched by the falling glass, but, reasonably believing her husband to be in danger, she instinctively clutched his arm, and tried to pull him from the spot. In doing this, she strained her-leg in such a way as to bring about a recurrence of thrombosis. Anil and Reena are claiming compensation for their injuries which were caused due to the negligence of the shop owners. The shop owners are denying liability on the grounds of Valenti non-fit injuria. The defense of Valenti non-fit injuria.
PRINCIPLES
I. A master is liable for the wrongful acts of his servant.
II. A person can be called a servant only if there is a relation of employment and he acts under the order and on behalf of his master.
FACTS
X bank launched a saving scheme for poor sections of the society and the customer can deposit ₹10 per day. Y, an unemployed youth, collected money from several customers, and on behalf of them deposited the money at the bank every day. The bank gave to Y a small commission. After some time, Y disappeared without depositing the money given by the customers. The customers bring a suit alleging that the bank is liable. Decide
In Law of Torts,
LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
1. Medical professionals are not immune from liability in tort on the ground of negligence.
2. Services rendered to a patient by a doctor (except when given free of charge) by way of consultation, diagnosis and treatment fall in the definition of "service" under the Consumer Protection Act, in case of negligence, the doctors are liable in tort as well as under the Consumer Protection Act.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A was the only child of his parents. Once he had a high fever and his parents called a doctor at home. This doctor used to work at a respectable hospital in Delhi. The doctor administered certain medicines and asked the nurse to stay with him for the night and administer to him a chloroquine injection. This injection was generally not suitable for young children. The nurse, without a prior test, followed instructions of the doctor and gave the injection. As a result of an allergic reaction, the child died. The parents sued the nurse and the doctor. DECISION:
