Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
The question consists of two statements, one labelled as principle and other as Fact. You are to exa.mine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.
PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offense which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
FACT: A takes his son B who is three years old, for a bath to the well. He throws his son inside the well so that he could have a good bath. After 10 minutes he also jumped in the well to take a bath and take his son out of the well. Both were rescued by the villagers but his son was found dead.
Options
A has committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder
A has committed murder
A has done no offence as he can plead the defence of unsoundness of mind
A's family should be responsible for this incident to let him to take child to the well
Advertisements
Solution
A has done no offence as he can plead the defence of unsoundness of mind
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
In this Question, the problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question.
Rules
A. The act of using threats to force another person to enter into a contract is called coercion.
B. The act of using influence on another and taking undue advantage of that person is called undue influence.
C. In order to prove coercion, the existence of the use of threat, in any form and manner, is necessary. If coercion is proved, the person who has been so threatened can refuse to abide by the contract.
D. In order to prove undue-influence, there has to be a pre-existing relationship between the parties to a contract. The relationship has to be of such a nature that one is in a position to influence the other. If it is proven that there has been undue influence, the party who has been so influenced need not enforce the contract or perform his obligations under the contract.
Facts:
Aadil and Baalu are best friends. Aadil is the son of a multi-millionaire business person, Chulbul who owns Maakhan Pharmaceuticals. Baalu is the son of a bank employee, Dhanraj. One day, Aadil is abducted from his office by Baalu. Chulbul receives a phone call from Dhanraj telling him that if he does not make Baalu the CEO of Maakhan Pharmaceuticals, Aadil will be killed. Chulbul reluctantly agrees to make the Baalu the CEO.
Subsequently, Chulbul and Baalu sign an employment contract. However, as soon as Aadil is released and safely returns home, Chulbul tells Baalu that he shall not enforce the employment contract. Baalu and Dhanraj are not sure as to what is to be done next.
Baalu will succeed in getting the employment contract enforced if he can show that
In this Question problem consists of a set of rules and facts. Apply the specified rules to the set of facts and answer the question. In answering the following question, you should not rely on any rule(s) except the rule(s) that are supplied for problem. Further, you should not assume any fact other than 'those stated in the problem. The aim is to test your ability to properly apply a rule to a given set of facts, even when the result is absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the aim to test any knowledge of law you may already possess.
Rules:
A. When land is sold, all `fixtures' on the land are also deemed to have been sold.
B. If a moveable thing is attached to the land or any building on the land, then it becomes a 'fixture'.
Facts: Khaleeda wants to sell a plot of land she owns in Baghmara, Meghalaya and the sale value decided for the plot includes the fully-furnished palatial six-bedroom house that she has built on it five years ago. She sells it to Garret for sixty laky rupees. After completing the sale, she removes the expensive Iranian carpet which used to cover the entire wooden floor of one of the bedrooms. The room had very little light and Khalid used this light-colored radiant carpet to negate some of the darkness in the room. Garret, after moving in, realizes this and files a case to recover the carpet from Khalid. Assume that in the above fact scenario, Khalid no longer wants the carpet. She removes the elaborately carved door to the house after the sale has been concluded and claims that Garret has no claim to the door. The door in question was part of Khaleeda's ancestral home in Nagercoil, Tamil Nadu for more than 150 years before she had it fitted as the entrance to her Baghmara house. As a judge, you would decide in favour of it.
The question consists of two statements, one labelled as the principle and other as Fact. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.
Principle: When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal.
Fact: “Ramanuj telegraphed to Shyam Sunder, writing: “Will you sell me your Rolls Royce CAR? Telegram the lowest cash price.” Shyam Sunder also replied by telegram: “Lowest price for CAR is ₹20 lakh.” Ramanuj immediately sent his consent through telegram stating: “I agree to buy the CAR for ₹20 lakh asked by you.” Shyam Sunder refused to sell the car.
This question consists of principles and facts. The principal 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 the question, you must not rely on any principle except the principle that is given hereinbelow for the 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 the study of law, research aptitude, and problem-solving ability.
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 law, a person is deemed to have attained the age of majority when he completes the age of 18 years, except in the case of a person where a guardian of a minor’s person or property has been appointed under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 or where the superintendence of a minor’s property is assumed by a Court of Wards. Indian law expressly forbids a minor from entering into a contract. Hence, any contract entered into by a minor is voidabinitio regardless of whether the other party was aware of his minority or not. Further, though a minor is not competent to contract, nothing in the Contract Act prevents him from making the other party bound to the minor.
Facts: Lal executed a promissory note in favour of Gurudutt, aged 16 years stating that he would pay Gurudutt a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs when he attains the age of majority. On attaining the age of 18, Gurudutt demanded the amount from Lal, who refused to pay. Gurudutt wants to take legal action against Lal. Identify the most appropriate legal position from the following:
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 the 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: Whoever takes away with him any minor less than sixteen years of age if a male, or less than eighteen years of age if a female, out of the custody of parents of such minor without the consent of such parents, is said to commit no offence.
Facts: ‘A’, a man, took away a girl below sixteen years to Mumbai without informing the parents of the girl.
The Right to Education Act, 2009 (RTE) provides for free and compulsory education to:
Which of the following legal statement is incorrect?
Every agreement and promise enforceable by law is ................
In social agreements usual presumption is
To form a valid contract, there should be at least .............
