Q.

1 PRINCIPLE: a high court can exercise its jurisdiction if a part of the cause of action
either wholly or partly arises within its territorial jurisdiction. Cause of action arises at the
place where consequences fall on the person concerned.
FACTS: raja who stays in Bhopal filed an FIR against nitin in Orissa. Nitin was a resident of
Agra and carried on his business in Delhi. Nitin filed a case before Delhi high court to
transfer the case to Delhi on the ground that most of the facts on which the FIR was based
had occurred in Delhi and most of the investigation in the compliant was also to take place in
delhi.the matter was rejected by the Delhi high court. Aggrieved by the decision nitin had
approached the supreme court of India. Decide:
(a) The HC order was incorrect as the cause of action mostly related to the state of Delhi
and not Bhopal.
(b) The HC order was correct as the cause of action is irrelevant.
(c) The HC order was correct as the cause of action arose in Bhopal since raja resided in
Bhopal.
(d) None of the above
SOLUTION: C
EXPLANATION: here the raja stays in Bhopal. The other is that the cause of action also
arose in Bhopal as the consequence of the matter will fall on raja.

Q.2 PRINCIPLE: the constitution guarantees Indian citizens the right to form association.
This right is subject to reasonable restrictions such as sovereignty of the state, public order,
morality etc.
FACTS: certain railway employees who belonged to AB workers union sponsored by a
political party XYP carried on agitation for a general strike for increase in pay which leads to
paralyzing communication and movement of essential supplies in the state of Haryana. The
govt. understanding the motive and intention of the employees, decided to terminate the
services. Thus, an order was passed which lead to charge sheeting of the railway employees
involved and termination of their services. The employees who were terminated from service
challenged their dismissal on the grounds of restriction of freedom to form association.
Decide:
(a) The termination of the employees from services was valid as they were terminated not
because of their association with the trade union but because of their subversive activities.
(b) The termination of the employees from service was valid as they were involved in
paralyzing communication.
(c) The termination of the employees from service was invalid because association of
employee with any trade union
(d) None of the above
SOLUTION: A
EXPLANATION: here railway employees had the FR to association but the right cannot be
exercised for paralyzing essential features.
Q.3 PRINCIPLE: a high court can exercise its jurisdiction if a part of the cause of action
either wholly or partly arises within its territorial jurisdiction. Cause of action arises at the
place where consequences fall on the person concerned.
FACTS: saluja limited had its office in Nagpur. Read in a local newspaper an advertisement
issued by ONGC, inviting tenders at their head office in Bhopal, for works to be executed at
their plant in Haryana. In response to the advertisement, saluja limited sent its tender from
Nagpur to head office in Bhopal. All the tenders bids were analyzed in Bhopal and the bid by
saluja limited was rejected on the grounds of non-fulfillment of eligibility criterion. The
officers of saluja limited submitted representations in Bhopal against this rejection but these
were also not taken into consideration . saluja limited filed a writ petition against ONGC in
the high court of Nagpur. The court issued orders against ONGC to consider the tender of
saluja limited. Decide whether the high court could issue such an order?
(a) The HC lacked jurisdiction as no cause of action arises within territorial jurisdiction
of Nagpur. The tender was submitted at Bhopal and all subsequent correspondences
were also addressed to the ONGC office in Bhopal.
(b) The HC had jurisdiction to hear the matter as cause of action arose within the
territorial jurisdiction of Nagpur.
(c) The HC lacked jurisdiction as no cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of
NAGPUR.
(d) None of the above.
SOLUTION: A
EXPLANATION: the answer is self-explanatory. If 3 tenders were made from 3 different
states, it would render ONGC in a difficult position.

Q.4 PRINCIPLE: audi alteram partem

FACTS: tanisha and manisha are arch enemies. Both are extremely talented in studies and
both of them wish to top the school exams to get the prestigious scholar tag. Tanisha fell ill
because she had a aloo-tikki from a nearby unhygienic shop and is not well prepared for the
exams. In all probability manisha would top the exams and get the scholar tag. Another girls
manita who was extremely jealous of tanisha saw the opportunity to met out her grudges
against tanisha. A few days before exams she stole manisha’s economics notes , wrote a letter
in tanisha’s handwriting and drops it in manisha’s bag stating HOW CAN YOU TOP THE
EXAMS WITHOUT ECONOMICS NOTES. The matter was reported to principal and
immediately tanisha was aexpelled from school. Decide why principal answer is not correct
in law:
(a) The principle did not give an opportunity to tanisha to keep her side of the story.
(b) The principle have not talked first to the parents of tanisha.
(c) The principle has not discussed it with other teachers.
(d) None of the above
SOLUTION: A
EXPLANATION: according to the principle it is tanisha’s right first to keep her points in
front of the principle but she did not get a chance of it.

Q.5 PRINCIPLE: ignorance of fact is excused but ignorance of law is no excuse.

FACTS: Joseph was a resident of south Africa who came to India for the wedding for his
family friend ashok . while attending the marriage he saw that many people are drinking in
the marriage in front of the people he though there is no law and rule and regulation about it.
Next day he started drinking in the public park which remains highly crowded with
children’s, old people and many more. This was reported to the police and the police arrested
him in the offence of drinking in public. Joseph plea that he was ignorance of this fact that
drinking is prohibited in park. Decide:
(a) Joseph is not liable as he was resident of South Africa and he is a guest of Indians so
we should give him a chance.
(b) Joseph is liable as ignorance of law is no excuse.
(c) Joseph is not liable as ignorance of fact is excusable.
(d) None of the above
SOLUTION: B
EXPLANATION: according to the principle ignorance of fact is excusable but ignorance of
law is not here Joseph has violated the law of India.