Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: When a person falsifies something with the intent to deceive another person or entity is forgery and is a criminal act. Changing or adding the signature on a document, deleting it, using or possessing false writing is also considered forgery. In the case of writing to fall under the definition, the material included must have been fabricated or altered significantly in order to represent something it is actually not.
Facts: John was a publisher of ancient books and papers. In one of his books on the World Wars, he gave photograph of some letters written by famous historic personalities. A researcher in history noted that in the pictures of some of the letters printed in the book, John had added some words or sentences in his own handwriting to give completeness to the sentences, so that the readers will get a clear picture of the writer’s intention. The researcher challenges the originality of those pictures and claims that the book containing the forged letters should be banned. Examine the validity of the researcher’s demand.
Options
The additions were made to give clarity to the original document and did not in any sense change the contents of the documents and hence there is no forgery as alleged by the researcher.
As forgery amounts to adding or deleting anything from an original document, the demand of the researcher is valid.
The additions in the letters were made by the publisher in his own handwriting would have made material alteration to the original meaning and hence amounted to forgery.
Allowing forged publications to be circulated among the public is as good as committing fraud on the public, so the publication should be banned.
Advertisements
Solution
The additions were made to give clarity to the original document and did not in any sense change the contents of the documents and hence there is no forgery as alleged by the researcher.
Explanation:
The additions were made to give clarity to the original document and did not in any sense change the contents of the documents and hence there is no forgery alleged by the researcher. John has only made additions to make the contents clearer. There was no intention of deceiving another person or entity. The additions did not change the sense of the original content and it was not fabricated or altered significantly. There was only intent of clarity and not to represent something which is factually incorrect. (Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr vs Meenakshi Marwah & Anr on 11 March, 2005)
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle: Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so or to provide gratuitously, and such other person takes the benefit of that; the latter is bound to compensate the former for something is done or thing provided, or to restore, the thing so delivered.
Facts: Trader 'A' delivers certain eatables at B's house by mistake. 'B' consumed the eatables without asking anything. Which of the following derivations is correct?
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: According to law, a person who finds goods belonging to another and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee. Bailee is a person or party to whom goods are delivered for a purpose, such as custody or repair, without transfer of ownership. The finder of the goods legally can sell the goods found by him under certain circumstances including the situation that the owner refuses to pay the lawful charges of the finder.
Facts: P, a college student, while coming out of a Cricket stadium found a necklace, studded with apparently precious diamonds. P kept it for two days thinking that the owner would notify it in a local newspaper. Since he did not notice any such notification, P published a small classified advertisement in a local newspaper. In two days’ time, P was contacted by a film actor claiming that it was her Necklace and requested P to return it to her. P told her that she should compensate him for the advertisement charges then only he would return it otherwise he will sell it and make good his expenses. The film star told P that she had advertised in a national newspaper about her lost Necklace which was lost somewhere in the Cricket Stadium. The advertisement was published for three consecutive days incurring a large expenditure for her. Mentioning all this she refuses to pay P and claims the Necklace back. Which among the following is the most appropriate answer to this?
Result of successful prosecution is
What kind of contact must the plaintiff prove as an element of the tort of battery?
Which one of the following groups are required by law to be insured?
According to SEBI norms, a person found guilty of indulging in unfair trade practices shall be liable to a penalty of
- Rs. 25 crore
- Three times the amount of profits made out of such practices, .....
The correct answer is :
The defence under nuisance is
PRINCIPLE An owner of land has the right to use the land in any manner he or she desires. The owner of the land also owns the space above and the depths below it.
FACTS Ramesh owns an acre of land on the outskirts of Sullurpeta, Andhra Pradesh. The Government of India launches its satellites into space frequently from Sriharikota, near Sullurpeta. The Government of India does not deny that once the satellite launch has travelled the distance of almost 7000 kilometres it passes over Ramesh's property. Ramesh files a case claiming that the Government of India has violated his property rights by routing its satellite over his property, albeit 7000 kilometers directly above it.
Applying the principle to the case you would decide
Principle: Nobody shall make use of his property in such a way as to cause damage to others. Any such use constitutes a private nuisance, a wrongful act under Law of Torts.
Facts: Vasan was owing to a house, adjacent to a cluster of houses, owned by Varadan. Varadan was leasing out these houses whereas Vasan was living in his house. When Vasan was transferred to another place, he leased out his house to a person suffering from AIDS. Fearing the spread of AIDS, the tenants moved out of Varadan's houses. Varadan requested Vasan to evict AIDS patient and he offered to fix a suitable tenant for Vasan's house if the AIDS patient is evicted. But Vasan refused by arguing that AIDS would not spread as feared by Varadan's tenants. Varadan filed a suit against Vasan.
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?
