Ques 1

SET C

Answer given (3)

Correct answer : (2) and (4)

The court for the purposes of S.34 is to be seen as per S.2 (1)(e) of the Arbitration Act and not
as per S.34 r/w S.2(1)(e) of A&C Act, 1996 r/w S.10 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This is
because the question uses the phrase ‘domestic arbitration’ and domestic arbitration for the
purposes of the Arbitration Act means arbitration other than International Commercial
Arbitration. The question does not state ‘domestic arbitration concerning a commercial dispute
of specified value’. Therefore, the question has to be answered in light of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act and not Commercial courts Act. Thus, option (3) is patently wrong and the
correct answer lies in option (4) or option (2). [Option (1) is ousted because it uses the word
‘only’]

Ques 186
SET C

Answer given : (4)

Correct answer (1) and (4)

Cardinal Presumption of Criminal law is presumption of innocence of accused and therefore, the
burden of proof lies on the prosecution filing the criminal proceedings. Similarly, as per Order 18
Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the right to begin is on the plaintiff, that is, the person
filing the suit. So far as the general rule is concerned, primarily the burden of proof in a suit or
proceedings lies on the person filing the suit or proceedings. This scenario presented under
option (1) is not incorrect. The scenario envisaged by the question under S.102 IEA only comes
into picture when the party instituting/ filing the suit or proceedings has discharged its initial
burden and thereafter the Onus of proof in a suit or proceedings lies on the person who would
fail if no evidence at all was given on the either side. This means option (4) is correct as well.
Therefore, if the former scenario was in the contemplation of the candidate, then he is bound to
answer in light of S.101 and is correct in doing so and where the latter scenario was in the
contemplation of the candidate while answering the question then he is bound to answer in light
of S.102 of IEA and is correct in doing so.

Ques 31
SET C

Answer given : (3)

Correct answer : (1)

There is a difference between the stage of allowing the application under Order 12 Rule 6 and at
the stage of pronouncement of judgment under Order 12 Rule 6. Where a court allows or rejects
the said application, it would pass an order doing so. Once the order is passed, thereafter the
judgment is passed and decree is drawn. The question in hand is laying down the options
regarding various ‘orders’ and asking the candidate to decide in the context of S.2 (2) of CPC,
1908 as to whether or not the given orders are deemed to be decree. According to S.2 (2) of
CPC, only two types of orders are deemed decrees - (i) Order passed rejecting a plaint under
OVII Rule 11 CPC and (ii) Order passed determining any question within S.144 of CPC.
Therefore, the order passed allowing the application under order XII Rule 6 CPC is not a
deemed decree and will not be included in the definition of ‘decree’.

Ques 12
SET C

Answer given :(3)

Correct answer : (3) and (4)

Reasoning

S.20 CPC -

Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits
of whose jurisdiction

(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the
commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally
works for gain; or

(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of
the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain,
provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not
reside, or carry on business, or personally works for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such
institution; or

(c)The cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

As per S.20(c) - Option (3) is correct as no part of cause of action arose in Gurugram

As per S.20(a) - Option (4) is also correct as it is nowhere mentioned where B resided and it is
only mentioned that A, who is plaintiff resided in Gurugram. It is not expected for the candidate
to assume that B also resided in Gurugram. Hence, even Option (4) is correct.
Ques. 10
SET C

Answer given : 2

Correct answers : (1) and (4)

Reasoning

Caveat affords the party the opportunity of hearing when an application is filed and it is true that
caveat is passed in anticipation of an application by the opposite party. The party deserves a
right to be heard. It is also a facet of natural justice.

However, at times where the court finds that summoning the defendant and waiting for him to
appear will cause injustice to the party or defeat the purpose of the suit then the court will not
adopt an iron rod approach and sit with folded hands and wait for the defendant.

Such an approach will allow the defendants to mischievously file a caveat and then deliberately
delay the proceedings and meanwhile continue infringing the rights of the plaintiff.

The court has to do balancing of interest and accordingly allow substantive justice to prevail
over procedural norms.

If as an inviolable rule of law, when such applications are moved, the courts are expected to sit
and wait like mute spectators then the same will defeat the whole purpose of suit and lead to
abuse of legal proceedings and travesty of justice.

Where the balance of convenience is in favour of the party (in our case the plaintiff) and the
triple test as laid down in M/S Gujarat Bottling Co.Ltd. & Ors vs The Coca Cola Co. & Ors, 1995
SC is satisfied the court is not stopped from taking a swift action in the interest of justice.

Thus, from the perspective of interest of justice- option (1) and (4) both are correct.

Ques 62
SET C

Answer given: (2)

Correct Answer: (1) and (2)

Reasoning
As per Supreme Court judgement in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, an accused
cannot invoke Section 91 at the framing of charges stage. However, the court referred to
subsequent judgments in Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar and Nitya Dharmananda Alias
K. Lenin v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy which allowed consideration of defence material at the stage
of framing of charges in exceptional cases.

Debendra (2004) is a three Judges bench case

Rukmini (2008) is a two judges bench

Nitya Dharmananda (2017 ) is a two judges bench

Debendra which is 3JB established the general rule that the accused does not have locus standi
at the stage of charge framing as a matter of right to invoke under section no, 91 CrPC.

The subsequent judgements of smaller benches ruled that in exceptional cases that accused
can seek the production of documents

Based on the reasoning aforesaid, the statement can be correct or incorrect depending upon
the facts and circumstances of the case. Also, it is pertinent to mention that when the question
has options both consisting (i) a general rule and (ii) an exception and not many facts are
available in it to check which option is more appropriate, it is on the basis of general rule the
candidate will naturally answer. Therefore, option (1) seems the most appropriate.

However, in light of fairplay one can consider this question having more than one option correct:
(1) and (2). Therefore, either marks should be awarded to both the options or the question is
liable to be quashed.

Ques 175
SET C

Answer given : (4)

Correct Answer : (1)

Section 11(1) of the SRA provides that a contract can be specifically enforced when the act
agreed to be done is wholly or partly of the trust.
Whereas section 11(2) provides that a contract made by a trustee in excess of his powers or in
breach of trust cannot be specifically enforced.
The question asked ‘which cannot be specifically enforced and thus answer should be Option 1.

Ques 193
SET C
Answer given : (1)
Correct answer : (2)

OXXXIX Rule 2A talks about the consequence when the order of injunction has been breached
by the party. The said Rule provides for the consequence of the breach of injunction. It nowhere
vests power to the court to grant status quo ante. S.94 of the CPC states that in order to prevent
the ends of justice from being defeated the court may grant a temporary injunction. This kind of
temporary injunction is not specified since the provision categorically states in order to prevent
the ends of justice, then it being a substantive provision, the court can be said to derive its
power from the same. S.151 CPC comes into picture when there is no express provision
addressing the solution to any processual issue given under CPC. However, when there is
already an express provision, in our S.94 CPC, from which the court can derive its power to
order Temporary mandatory injunction then S.151 CPC cannot be invoked. In light of the settled
interpretation of law, the correct option is (2) instead of (1).

Ques 43
SET C

Answer given: (3)

Correct Answer : (None)

Question has to be certain, clear and unambiguous. Any ambiguity in the question jeopardizes
the competitive fairness as the candidate is already running under pressure of time. In the
question no phrase was underlined. Most candidates can leave such a question carrying a
misprint. Moreover, “doing well” could also be considered as one of the phrases and option (2)
could be marked or “doing well in his business' ' can be considered as a phrase and option (4)
can be marked. Therefore, by not specifying the phrase the question turns out to be incomplete
and is liable to be deleted.