Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Principle: One who dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use or sells any movable property belonging to another, is guilty of the offence of misappropriation.
Facts: 'A' takes property belonging to 'Z' out of Z's possession, in good faith, believing when he takes it, that the property belongs to himself. Subsequently, 'A', on discovering his mistake, without disclosing the actual facts, dishonestly sells the property to a stranger.
Options
'A' is not guilty because when he took the property, he believed in good faith that it belonged to him.
'A' is guilty of an offence of misappropriation.
'A' may be guilty of theft but not for misappropriation.
'A' is not guilty as the property can be recovered from the stranger.
Advertisements
Solution
'A' is guilty of an offence of misappropriation.
Explanation:
According to the section 403 of Indian Penal Code defines Dishonest misappropriation of property whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
1. A dishonest misappropriation for a time only is a misappropriation within the meaning of this section.
2. A person who finds property not in the possession of any other person, and takes such property for the purpose of protecting it for, or of restoring it to, the owner, does not take or misappropriate it dishonestly, and is not guilty of an offence; but he is guilty of the offence above defined, if he appropriates it to his own use, when he knows or has the means of discovering the owner, or before he has used reasonable means to discover and give notice to the owner and has kept the property a reasonable time to enable the owner to claim it.
What are reasonable means or what is a reasonable time in such a case, is a question of fact.
It is not necessary that the finder should know who is the owner of the property, or that any particular person is the owner of it; it is sufficient if, at the time of appropriating it, he does not believe it to be his own property, or in good faith belief that the real owner cannot be found.
The reasonable conclusion is drawn A is guilty of misappropriation is the correct.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle: False imprisonment is a tort (wrong) which means the total restraint of a person's liberty without lawful justification.
Facts: A part of a public road had been closed for spectators of a boat race. 'P' wanted to enter but he was prevented by 'D' and other policemen because he had not paid the admission fee. 'P' was able to enter the enclosure by other means but was unable to go where he wanted to go. The policemen refused access to where he wanted to go but allowed him to remain where he was or to go back. 'P' remained within the enclosure and refused to leave. Subsequently, 'P' sued 'D' for false imprisonment.
The Government of India is planning to open Rail Link between Sealdah to Devpura. Devpura is located in –
Mark the best option:
Principles: Qui facit per alium facit per se, " he who does things through others does it himself"
Facts: Nisha owner of a car asked her friend Saurabh to take her car and drive the same to her office. As he car near her office, it hit a pedestrian Srikant, who was injured seriously. Srikant files a case against Nisha.
Decide Nisha's liability.
In order to establish the tort of assault, what type of apprehension must the plaintiff prove that he or she had as a result of the defendant’s conduct?
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.
PRINCIPLE Nuisance is the interference in the enjoyment of the property.
FACTS Pizzeria, a small cafeteria selling namesake used to run a wood-fired oven. The resulting smoke caused a lot of smoke in the neighbourhood and there were a number of complaints from the locals who had not witnessed such an oven. The food inspector taking cognizance of these reports asked the restaurant to shut down the oven. The owner who had earlier ran a similar establishment in Italy did not comply. Is Pizzeria committing a nuisance?
PRINCIPLE Mere delegation does not transfer authority unless there is an actual transference of the power to control the actions of the servant.
FACTS The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation set-up a link transport service permitting passengers to use buses to the end destinations. These buses and drivers were provided on contract to the Metro Corporation by the Delhi Bus Company and the drivers were trained, supervised and instructed into the routes and manner of driving by employees of the corporation. When a passenger X, had boarded one such bus and was involved in an accident on account of the bus driver; he wants to know against whom should he file the suit under the principle of vicarious liability.
The question contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. A list of probable decisions and reasons are given.
Principles:
1. When a person unlawfully interferes in the chattel of another person by which the latter is deprived of its use, the former commits the tort of conversion.
2. Nobody shall enrich himself at other's expense,
Facts:
A patient suffering from stomach ailment approached. a teaching hospital. He was diagnosed as suffering from appendicitis and his appendix was removed. He became alright. The hospital however found some unique cells in the appendix and using the cell lines thereof, it developed drugs of enormous commercial value. When the erstwhile patient came to know about it, he claimed a share in the profit made by the hospital.
Possible Decisions
(a) The hospital need not share its profits with the patient.
(b) The hospital may share its profits on ex gratis basis. (c) The hospital shall share its profits with the patient.
Possible Reasons
(i) The patient, far from being deprived of the use of his appendix, actually benefitted by its removal.
(ii) The hospital instead of throwing away the appendix conducted further research on it on its own and the development of the drug was the result of its own effort.
(iii) The hospital could not have achieved its success without that appendix belonging to the patient.
(iv) Everybody must care for and share with others. Your decision with the reason.
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:
Defamation means publication of a false and derogatory statement about another person without lawful justification.
Factual situation: A writes a defamatory letter to B containing defamatory remarks in reference of B in Urdu language. A is aware that B does not know Urdu. B goes C who knows Urdu and the letter is read over by C to him. B sues A for defamation. 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. 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 in 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.
3. Generally, nuisances cannot be justified on the ground of necessity. pecuniary interest, convenience, or economic advantage to a defendant.
Facts:
Dr. Hemant had for 18 years operated a clinic and hospital for the treatment of ENT. Dr. Karan operated a renal clinic in which patients receive haemo-dialysis on the floor above Dr. Hemant’s clinic. Karan was found liable for obnoxious fumes emitting from the clinic which escaped downwards into Dr. Hemant’s clinic. Hemant, his staff and patients were found to have suffered substantial damage ranging from skin diseases, red and swollen eyes, headaches, lethargy and breathing difficulties. Decide whether Karan is liable?
