Legal Workbook

LEGAL
REASONING
(WORKBOOK)
1st Edition 2020.
©Possible Education Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow. All rights reserved.
This work is copyright protected under Indian and International Copyright Laws. All rights
reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced, transmitted in any form by any means,
including photocopying and recording, without the written permission of the copyright holder, an
application for which should be addressed to the author. Such written permission should be
obtained before any part of this publication is stored in a retrieval system of any nature. The
copyright extends to the particular arrangement, sequence, construction and language of
information presented, this list being indicative and not exhaustive.
No copyright is asserted with regards to questions published by Universities, official and public
documents, works where acknowledged and statutory references. Except where specifically
provided questions and examples are works of fiction and do no bear any resemblance or reference
to any person living or dead. All disputes subject to Lucknow Jurisdiction only.
CONTENT
Questions ………………….…………………………..……..………………………..……. 1-60

Answers and explanations .….……………………….………………………………. 61-72
Questions LEGAL WORKBOOK
Questions
Passage 1
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides some general defences that exonerate criminal liability which is
based on the premise that although a person committed an offence, he cannot be held liable. This is
because at the time of the commission of offence, the person‘s actions were justified, or there was an
absence of mens rea. Exceptions such as mistake of fact and accident, among others, are available
when person was mistaken to the existence of some facts and the act was done without criminal intention.
Mistake of fact: This exception arises when an accused has misunderstood some fact that negates an
element of crime. This legal weapon can be used, where the accused succeeds to prove that he/she was
mistaken to the existence of some facts or ignorant of the existence of such facts. However, the said
mistake must be of fact, and not law. Section 76 of the IPC, in that spirit, states:
76. Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law.--
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by
reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it.
Therefore, it is clear that an act will not be an offence, if it is committed in a bona fide manner by a person
who by mistake of fact believes himself to be bound by law to do such an act. However, mistake of fact will
not be a valid defence if the act committed is illegal in itself.
Accident: With this defence a person can escape criminal liability when the act of a person occurs as a
result of an accident. Such an act must be devoid of intention. Law does not intend to punish a person for
things over which they have no control. Section 80 of the IPC, in that spirit, states:
80. Accident in doing a lawful act.--Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or
misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in
a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.
An accident must be unintentional and unexpected. According to the section quoted above, any act done
without criminal intent or knowledge while doing a lawful act in a lawful manner with lawful means will
constitute an accident.
1. Jaisingh is a wanted criminal and his face is plastered across police stations and public spaces in
Bhopal. There is also a monetary award for anyone who is able to nab him. One day, Michael, while
roaming in the city zoo spots a man who he thinks looks like Jaisingh. He follows him in the park
and when he is close enough, hits him really hard with an iron rod on his head in order to apprehend
him and report him to the police. However, upon a closer examination it is found out that the man
Michael hurt is not Jaisingh. Can Michael take the defence of mistake of fact?
a) Yes, as Michael genuinely thought he had spotted a criminal.
b) Yes, as Michael hit the person with the intention of helping the police.
c) No, as the act committed by Michael was illegal in itself.
d) No, as Michael should have determined the identity first and then hit him.
2. Sameer and Saurabh are brothers living on the third floor of an apartment building. Their neighbour,
Rishabh, suspects that the two brothers are smuggling in rice as he sees that daily sacks and sacks of
rice grains are being transported in and out of their flat. Under this belief, he calls the local police
station reporting the smuggling of rice. However, when the police arrives and investigates, Rishabh‘s
suspicions are found to be false. Can Rishabh can claim an exception of mistake of fact?
a) No, as he was ignorant about the law and not facts.
b) Yes, as he reported the activity to the police in good faith.
c) No, as he should have first checked for himself.
d) Yes, as if it were not for Rishabh, the act would have gone unreported.
(1)
© Possible education Pvt. Ltd.: All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or
circulation of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under laws of India
3. Rajendra, a farmer, owns a piece of land where he grows wheat which is supplied to the wholesale
market in the adjoining city. One day, he noticed that his crops had been uprooted and he thought
that was the activity of a bear, as bears had often been spotted in and around that area. On the
second day, he again found his crops uprooted and sensed a movement in the field. He fetched his
bow and arrow and shot at the spot where he sensed some movement. It turned out that he had
injured a person. Can Rajendra claim the defence of accident?
a) No, as before shooting an arrow, Rajendra should have determined the identity of the miscreant.
b) Yes, as Rajendra shot an arrow believing it to be a bear, and did not intend to hurt a person
instead.
c) No, as Rajendra shot an animal which is an illegal act in itself.
d) Yes, as Rajendra has all the rights to protect his filed and crop, irrespective of who attempts to
destroy it.
4. Girish and Mihir get into a fight in the middle of a road due to the former‘s car hitting the bumper
plate of the latter. Girish was accompanied by his wife and a son of two years of age. In the middle of
the fight, Mihir dealt a blow which accidentally landed on the wife who while holding her two-year
old son fell on the road. The fall caused severe injury to the son who had to be taken to the hospital.
Can Mihir claim the defence of accident for the injury caused to the child?
a) Yes, as he did not have the criminal intent or the knowledge to hurt the child.
b) Yes, as he only intended to scare Girish and not cause any injury to anyone.
c) No, as Mihir should have foreseen the result of his actions.
d) No, as Mihir‘s actions did not constitute a lawful act done in a lawful manner.
5. Consider that in factual scenario presented in the above question, a mad dog entered the fight-scene.
The dog attempts to bite Girish‘s wife. In an effort to drive away the dog, Mihir hits at it, accidentally
hitting the wife who falls and the two-year old son is severely injured who needs to be taken to the
hospital. Eventually, the son dies. Can Mihir take the defence of accident now?
a) No, as he hit at the dog with the criminal intent of harming it, irrespective of who was injured as a
result.
b) Yes, as he did not have the criminal intention to cause the death of the child.
c) No, as Mihir‘s actions were not done in a lawful manner.
d) Yes, as Mihir could not have foreseen the death of the child.
Passage 2
Criminal law enumerates various punishments for offences which vary from case to case. However, it is not
always necessary that a person gets punished for a crime which they committed. The Indian Penal Code
(IPC) recognizes certain defences in Chapter IV under General Exceptions. Section 76 to 106 of the IPC
covers these defences. Some common defences of criminal law such as insanity, infancy and
intoxication are based on the defendant's lack of capacity to be held legally responsible.
Insanity: To use insanity as a legal excuse, the defendant has to show that he/she lacked the capacity to
understand that the act was wrong, or the capacity to understand the nature of the act. The logic of the
insanity as a defence goes back to the idea of mens rea and culpability. The basic idea is that some people,
under the duress of a mental disorder, cannot control their actions despite understanding that the action is
wrong. This general defence is explained under Section 84 of the IPC:
84. Act of a person of unsound mind.--Nothing is an offence 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.
The burden of proof is upon the accused to prove their insanity at the time of offence. It needs to be proved
by the accused that because of the accused's unsoundness of mind, they were incapable of knowing the
nature of the act or that the act was contrary to provisions of law.
Infancy: Infancy is the legal incapacity to be held responsible for a crime due to the age of the
perpetrator. There is a legal incapacity for the crime under seven years of age. Doli Incapax is a
presumption of law which provides that a child has no discretion to distinguish right from wrong, thus
criminal intention does not arise. In that spirit, Sections 82 and 83 of the IPC state:
82. Act of a child under seven years of age.--Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under
seven years of age.
(2)
83. Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding.--Nothing is an
offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained
sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that
occasion.
Intoxication: Intoxication is a state of mind in which a person loses self-control and his ability to judge.
Intoxication is a defence available to criminal defendant on the basis that, because of the intoxication, the
defendant did not understand the nature of his/her actions or know what he/she was doing. Section 85 of
the IPC which deals with this defence states that:
85. Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his
will.--Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of
intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or
contrary to law: provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his
knowledge or against his will.
The defence of intoxication typically depends on whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary
and what level of intent is required by the criminal charge.
1. Thomas is accused of killing his partner, Lily, in broad daylight in a shopping complex. The manner
of killing is described as repeated stabbing in the chest. At the trial, the counsel for Thomas pleads
insanity as a defence as it is established that Thomas has had history of schizophrenia in the past.
This schizophrenia is of a rare kind where a person loses all sense of what is right or wrong and goes
into an automation. On this ground alone, does this defence stand?
a) Yes, as having had schizophrenia, Thomas cannot be said to have properly judged the
consequences of his actions.
b) No, as Thomas cannot claim a past mental condition as a defence of insanity.
c) Yes, as Thomas cannot be said be said to have full control over his actions.
d) No, as the defence of insanity is not available for the crime of murder.
2. Consider Thomas‘s counsel is able to establish in court that Thomas was still suffering with the same
kind of schizophrenia, and was in the same condition when the offence of murder was committed.
Can he claim the defence of insanity now?
a) No, as being in a public space Thomas would have gained the propriety to act accordingly.
b) Yes, as at the time of the commission of the offence, Thomas cannot be said to have full control
over his actions.
c) No, as Thomas condition existed from the past, it cannot be said to have emerged at the time of
the commission of the offence.
d) Yes, as any mental disorder is a ground enough to claim the defence of insanity.
3. Rishi and Shashi are brothers, three and five years old respectively. One day while they were playing
near the washing machine at their house, Shashi told his brother that if Rishi got into the washing
machine he would be as clean as a dove. Taking his brother‘s word to be true, Rishi climbed into the
machine and Shashi switched it on. Rishi was badly injured and when taken to the hospital, he was
declared dead. Can Shashi be made liable for his brother‘s death?
a) Yes, as the machine would have clearly caused severe injuries to Rishi, which Shashi should have
been aware of.
b) No, as being of less than seven years of age, nothing is an offence which is done by Shashi.
c) Yes, as Shashi could clearly have deciphered that getting into the machine would severely harm
his brother.
d) No, as nothing done by a person who is not an adult can be considered an offence under the IPC.
4. Consider Shashi was ten years of age. What would have been your answer to the above question, all
the other facts remaining the same?
a) Shashi cannot be held liable for his brother‘s death as he still not an adult.
b) Shashi can be held liable for his brother‘s death as he is above seven years of age.
c) Shashi cannot be held liable for his brother‘s death as he did not intend to do the same.
d) Shashi can be held liable for his brother‘s death, as long as it is proven that he has attained
sufficient maturity or understanding to know the consequences of his actions.
(3)
5. Gabriel, a nurse by profession attended the christening ceremony of one of the newly born babies in
her care. Mistaking wine for apple cider, Gabriel drank it in excess causing her to be extremely
intoxicated. She was asked to place a log of wood on the fire, but in her condition, she mistook the
baby as a log of wood and set her on fire. Can she claim the defence of intoxication?
a) No, as Gabriel voluntarily drank the wine she cannot claim the defence of intoxication.
b) Yes, as Gabriel was intoxicated without her knowing it and did not intend to harm the child.
c) No, as Gabriel had the full capacity to distinguish cider from wine.
d) Yes, as Gabriel being a nurse should have known how to distinguish a child from a log of wood.
Passage 3
In everyday usage, the word ‗negligence‘ denotes mere carelessness. Legally speaking, it signifies failure to
exercise standard of care which the doer as a reasonable person should have exercised in the
circumstances. In general, there is a legal duty to take care when it is reasonably foreseeable that failure to
do so would likely to cause injury. Negligence is a mode in which many kinds of harms may be caused by
not taking adequate precautions.
According to Winfield and Jolowicz, negligence is the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in
damage, undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff. In an action for negligence, the plaintiff has to prove
the following essentials:
i. Duty to take care: One of the essential conditions of liability for negligence is that the defendant
owed a legal duty towards the plaintiff.
ii. Duty to whom: The legal duty to take care extends only to one‘s neighbour. The persons who are
so closely and directly affected by one‘s act that one ought reasonably to have them in contemplation
as being so affected when one is directing one‘s mind to the acts or omissions which are called in
question are one‘s neighbours.
iii. Duty must be towards the plaintiff: It is not sufficient that the defendant owed a duty to take
care. It must also be established that the defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff.
iv. Breach of duty to take care: Yet another essential condition for the liability in negligence is that
the plaintiff must prove that the defendant committed a breach of duty to take care or he failed to
perform that duty.
v. Consequent damage or consequential harm to the plaintiff: The last essential requisite for
the tort of negligence is that the damage caused to the plaintiff was the result of the breach of the
duty. The harm may fall into following classes:
 physical harm, i.e. harm to body;
 harm to reputation;
 harm to property, i.e. land and buildings and rights and interests pertaining thereto, and his
goods;
 economic loss; and
 mental harm or nervous shock.
1. Harish purchased some woollen underwear from a department store. A few weeks later, he
discovered that he had developed a skin disease near his thighs. It was discovered that the wool used
to make the underwear had an excess of sulphate which the manufacturers had failed to remove.
Have the manufacturers been negligent in their conduct?
a) No, as the manufacturers don‘t owe the duty to every other customer.
b) Yes, as Harish being a wearer of the underwear made by the manufacturers, he‘s directly affected
by their actions.
c) No, as none of the other buyers of the underwear came forth with such a complaint.
d) Yes, as the manufacturers are liable for every defect in the product they make.
2. In the factual scenario presented in the above question, what is the liability of the department store
from where Harish purchased the underwear, as far as negligence is concerned?
a) The department store is as much liable as the manufacturer for such a defect in the product.
b) The department store can never be held liable for any defects in the product.
c) Only the department store is liable for negligence as Harish purchased the product from them
d) The department store cannot be held liable as it did not manufacture the product.
(4)
3. A pregnant woman, 32 years of age was getting down from the bus onto the pavement. While she
was being helped to descend, a motor-cyclist, after passing the bus collided with a car at the distance
of 15 yards on the other side of the bus and died instantly. The woman could see neither the deceased
nor the accident as the bus was standing between her and the place of accident. She heard about the
collision and after the dead body had been removed she went to the place and saw blood spilled on
the road. Consequently, she suffered a nervous shock and gave birth to a still-born child of 8 months.
She sued the representatives of the deceased motor-cyclist. What is the liability of the motor-
cyclist/his representatives?
a) The motor-cyclist owed a duty of care to every passer-by on road to drive carefully.
b) The motor-cyclist owed a duty of care especially to a pregnant woman as his rash driving could
have affected her severely.
c) The motor cyclist did not owe a duty of care to the woman as she cannot be considered her
‗neighbour‘.
d) The motor cyclist did not commit negligent behaviour to anyone on the road.
4. Consider that the pregnant woman in the above question witnessed the accident from one of the
windows of the bus, all the other facts remaining the same. Can the motor-cyclist or his
representatives be held liable for negligent behaviour?
a) The motor-cyclist owed a duty of care to every passer-by on road to drive carefully.
b) The motor-cyclist owed a duty of care especially to a pregnant woman as his rash driving could
have affected her severely.
c) The motor cyclist did not owe a duty of care to the woman as she cannot be considered her
‗neighbour‘.
d) The motor cyclist did not commit negligent behaviour to anyone on the road.
5. Farah, the owner of an Alsatian dog (Oscar) asks her friend, Boman, to take care of her dog while she
is away for a week. While at Boman‘s house, Oscar is unattended one day and bites one of the
construction workers who were carrying out some repair work at Boman‘s house. Who can be
attributed with the tort of negligence?
a) Farah, as Oscar belonged to her, she should have been careful enough to warn Boman of his
habits.
b) Boman, as Oscar was in his care at the time when the construction worker was injured.
c) Neither Farah nor Boman as none of them had actual control over Oscar‘s actions.
d) None of the above.
Passage 4
Some activities may be so dangerous that the law has to regulate them with extreme consequences. For
example, the law may sometimes levy a penalty even if damage occurs without somebody‘s fault. This is
exactly what happens under the rule of strict liability. This rule is very important for commercial and
other activities that have the potential to result in horrific damages.
The strict liability principle is an extremely important concept under the law of torts. The basis of this
principle basically lies in the inherent harm that some activities can inflict.
The rule of strict liability originates from the famous English case of Rylands v. Fletcher. It said that when
somebody keeps something on his property for his benefit, it should not escape and affect others. In case it
so escapes, the owner of that thing must compensate the victim even if he was not negligent. However,
there are certain exceptions to this rule:
i. Act of God: An act of God is a sudden, direct and irresistible act of nature that nobody can
reasonably prepare for. It can cause damage regardless of how many precautions one may take. For
example, tsunamis, tornadoes, earthquakes, extraordinary rainfall, etc. are acts of God. Any damage
that occurs due to these acts does not attract strict liability.
ii. Wrongful act of third party: Sometimes, the involvement of third parties may be the cause of
damages. For example, renovation work in one flat may cause some nuisance to another flat. Here,
the tenant affected by the nuisance cannot sue his landlord. He can only sue the person renovating
the other flat.
iii. Plaintiff’s own fault: In several instances, the plaintiff may himself be at fault for the damage he
suffers. In such cases, he cannot shift liability on some other person regardless of how much he
suffers.
(5)
The Supreme Court of India applied a stricter version of the rule of strict liability in the case of MC Mehta
v. Union of India (1987). In this case, harmful Oleum gas had escaped from a factory owned by Shriram
Foods & Fertilizer Industries. The gas had caused a lot of damage to people and industries nearby.
According to the rule of absolute liability, no exceptions of strict liability shall apply in certain cases.
This is generally applied when there are numerous victims of a transgression. Therefore, the people who
cause damage will have unlimited liability to compensate victims adequately.
1. Karthik is the owner of a Tibetan Mastiff, one of the most ferocious dog breeds. He stays in a
crowded locality and one day when Karthik was on his way to office, the dog escaped the apartment
building and bit one of the children in the colony in his hand. The child‘s hand needed to be
amputated. Can Karthik take the defence of any of the exceptions?
a) Yes, as the plaintiff (the child) was at fault for having come in way of the dog.
b) No, as Karthik was the owner of this ferocious dog, he should have been more careful.
c) Yes, as Karthik cannot be made liable for every mistake of his dog.
d) No, as Karthik should not have brought such a ferocious dog to a crowded locality in the first
place.
2. Consider that in the factual scenario described in the above question, there was an earthquake
because of which the door to Karthik‘s house was unhinged after he had left for office. When he came
back home, he discovered that the dog had escaped the house and injured a lot of people in his
locality. Can Karthik claim any of the defences?
a) No, as Karthik was aware how ferocious the dog was, he should have secured him better.
b) Yes, as the earthquake was an act of God, and therefore, beyond Karthik‘s control.
c) No, as Karthik should not have brought such a ferocious dog to a crowded locality in the first
place.
d) Yes, as Karthik cannot be made liable for every mistake of his dog.
3. Esther is a young trainee at the Police Academy the premises of which is located right next to a
village panchayat office. Every morning, Esther attends firing practise which is in a compound
manned by a fence beyond which is the village. One day, at such a practise, Esther fires a shot which
misses the target and hits a villager who was passing by, beyond the fence. Can Esther be held liable?
a) No, as it was the part of her training to shoot at the target.
b) Yes, as Esther carried on a dangerous activity resulting in an escape which caused harm.
c) No, as it is the villager should not have been roaming around the police academy.
d) Yes, as Esther should have been aware that the bullet from her pistol could injure anyone.
4. ABC Construction company is building a road through a rural area when it encounters a rocky
promontory. Although the area is rather close to a housing district, they decide to blast away the
rock. A child, playing in a yard a block away is hit by a piece of flying rock, causing a deep laceration.
Can the company be held liable?
a) No, as the company could not have foreseen the flying rock hitting the child.
b) Yes, as the activity of blasting rock is an inherently dangerous activity which might cause an injury
to anyone.
c) No, as the child should have been more careful while near a blasting site.
d) Yes, as the company should not have carried out blasting activity near a housing district.
5. Consider that in above question, while the rocky promontory is being blasted, a small rocky hill
situated above caves in, causing the entire housing district, situated in the low land, to be buried
under the debris. Hundreds are reported to be either injured or dead. What is the nature of liability
on ABC Construction company?
a) ABC is strictly liable for the event, as it can still claim some exceptions to the situation.
b) ABC is not liable for the event, as it could not have foreseen the hill caving in.
c) ABC can claim the defence of the act of God as the hill caving in was not a direct result of the
blasting of rock.
d) ABC is absolutely liable for the event, subject to a court of law determining the same.
(6)
Passage 5
In the Indian Contract Act (Act), the definition of consent is given in Section 13, which states that ―it is
when two or more persons agree upon the same thing and in the same sense‖. Section 14 of the Act states:
14. ―Free consent‖ defined. – Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by— (1) coercion, as
defined in section 15, or (2) undue influence, as defined in section 16, or (3) fraud, as defined in section 17,
or (4) misrepresentation, as defined in section 18, or (5) mistake, subject to the provisions of sections 20,
21 and 22.
These factors are discussed in more detail, below:
i. Coercion: Coercion means using force to compel a person to enter into a contract. So force or
threats are used to obtain the consent of the party under coercion, i.e. it is not free consent. Now the
effect of coercion is that it makes the contract voidable. This means the contract is voidable at the
option of the party whose consent was not free. So the aggravated party will decide whether to
perform the contract or to void the contract.
ii. Undue Influence: When the relations between the two parties are such that one party is in a
position to dominate the other party, and uses such influence to obtain an unfair advantage of the
other party, it will be undue influence.
iii. Fraud: Fraud means deceit by one of the parties, i.e. when one of the parties deliberately makes
false statements. So the misrepresentation is done with full knowledge that it is not true, or
recklessly without checking for the trueness, this is said to be fraudulent. It absolutely impairs free
consent. One factor to consider is that the aggravated party should suffer from some actual loss due
to the fraud. There is no fraud without damages. Also, the false statement must be a fact, not an
opinion.
iv. Misrepresentation: Misrepresentation is also when a party makes a representation that is false,
inaccurate, incorrect, etc. The difference here is the misrepresentation is innocent, i.e. not
intentional. The party making the statement believes it to be true.
1. Rajiv and Ramesh are best friends and business partners, and the latter had been looking to
purchase a house. Rajiv owned two houses in the city, and one of them had not been occupied for a
long time. Ramesh asks Rajiv if he could sell the house to him for 5 lakh rupees. However, Rajiv had
set the purchasing price as 20 lakh rupees. Ramesh does not want to pay more than 5 lakh rupees, so
he says that if he does not sell the house to him at his price, he will leak some secret business
documents to the press. As Rajiv apprehends defamation due to this, he signs the contract papers
quickly and sells it to Ramesh. Is this a valid contract?
a) Yes, as Rajiv entered into the contract with full knowledge of the events and conditions.
b) No, as Ramesh coerced Rajiv into entering the contract.
c) Yes, as Rajiv did end up selling his house at a fair price.
d) No, Rajiv was a victim of fraud at the hands of Ramesh.
2. Girish, a school teacher, called one of his students, Raj, to his office in order to give him his test
report. He informed Raj that he had failed the test. However, he could reconsider his grades if Raj
sold him his gold watch for Rs. 500. Is this contract of sale between Girish and Raj valid?
a) Yes, as the watch was sold by Raj to Girish for a consideration.
b) No, as the sale of the watch occurred due to undue influence.
c) Yes, as Raj willingly sold his watch to Girish.
d) No, as any contract between a teacher and student is invalid.
3. Arko, the owner of a farm, bought a horse from Biswajeet. Biswajeet had, in order to get rid of this
horse, claimed that the horse could be used on the farm. However, it turned out that the horse was
lame and Arko could not use him on his farm as a result he ran losses for a month. Is Biswajeet said
to have committed fraud?
a) No, as Arko should have verified the information in full before purchasing the horse from
Biswajeet.
b) Yes, as Biswajeet should have known about Arka‘s needs.
c) No, as there has been no real damage caused to Arka because of the sale of the horse.
d) Yes, as Biswajeet deliberately misrepresented information to Arka, knowing it to be false.
(7)
4. Consider, in the factual scenario presented in the above question, had Biswajeet told Arka that his
horse was better than Chitra‘s horse (another person whose horse Arka had seen earlier), but it
turned out not to be so, can he be said to have committed fraud?
a) Yes, as he deliberately misrepresented false information.
b) No, as this was a statement of opinion and not a fact.
c) Yes, as he caused Arka to suffer damages because of the purchase of a poorer breed of horse.
d) No, as Arka did not suffer any damages due to this purchase.
5. Arijit is entitled to succeed to an estate at the death of Bhushan; Bhushan dies: Champa, having
received intelligence of Bhushan‘s death, prevents the intelligence reaching Arijit, and thus induces
Arijit to sell him his interest in the estate. Is such a sale valid?
a) Yes, since Arijit was not aware of Bhushan‘s death, he was not entitled to succeed.
b) No, as Champa misrepresented facts to Arijit in order to purchase his interest in the estate.
c) Yes, as Arijit should have made inquiries before selling his interest to Champa.
d) No, as Champa exercised undue influence in order to purchase Arijit‘s interest in the estate.
Passage 6
A contract of indemnity is one of the most important forms of commercial contracts. Several industries,
such as the insurance industry, rely on these contracts. This is because of the nature of these contracts.
They basically help businesses in indemnifying their losses and, therefore, reduce their risks. This is
extremely important for small as well as large businesses.
A contract of indemnity basically involves one party promising the other party to make good its losses.
These losses may arise either due to the conduct of the other party or that of somebody else. To indemnify
something basically means to make good a loss. In other words, it means that one party will compensate
the other in case it suffers some losses. Section 124 of the Indian Contract Act (Act) states:
124.―Contract of indemnity‖ defined.—A contract by which one party promises to save the other
from loss caused to him by the contract of the promisor himself, or by the conduct of any other person, is
called a ―contract of indemnity‖.
An indemnity contract may be either express or implied. In other words, parties may expressly create such
a contract as per their own terms. The nature of circumstances may also create indemnity obligations
impliedly.
Apart from indemnity contracts, the Act also governs contracts of guarantee. These contracts might appear
similar to indemnity contracts but there are some differences. In guarantee contracts, one party contracts
to perform a promise or discharge a liability of a third party. This will happen in case the third party fails
to discharge its obligations and defaults. However, the burden of discharging the burden will first lie on
the defaulting third party.
The person who gives the guarantee is the surety. On the other hand, the person for whom the surety gives
the guarantee is the principal debtor. Similarly, the person to whom he gives such a guarantee is the creditor.
There are some important differences between the contracts of indemnity and guarantee. Firstly, there are
just two parties in indemnity, while there are three in contracts of guarantee. Secondly, in a guarantee,
there is an existing debt/duty which the surety guarantees to discharge. On the other hand, liability in
indemnity is contingent and may not arise at all. Thirdly, an indemnifier might act without the debtor‘s
behest, while a surety always waits for the principal debtor‘s request. Finally, the liability of an indemnifier
towards the indemnity holder is primary. Whereas, in guarantee, the surety‘s liability is secondary. This is
because the primary liability lies on the principal debtor himself.
1. Bella owes Cindy an amount of rupees 2 lakhs, but has not been able to pay her back for some time.
Harry promises Bella that he will cover all her legal costs in case Cindy decides to take any action
against Bella. In return, Harry asked Bella to let him stay in her house for a month. What is the
nature of the promise made by Harry to Bella?
a) It is a contract of guarantee as Harry has promised to perform an activity in order to discharge the
liability of a third party.
b) It is a contract of indemnity as Harry has promised to discharge a liability that may arise in the
future.
c) It is a contract of guarantee as three people are involved.
d) It is neither a contract of indemnity nor guarantee. It is merely a promise.
(8)
2. Consider that in the above question, Harry offered to pay off the amount that Bella owed Cindy in
case Bella wasn‘t able to, and Bella accepted that offer. What would be the nature of such a contract?
a) It would be a contract of indemnity as Harry offered to make good some losses that Bella might
suffer in case she didn‘t make the payment.
b) It would be a contract of guarantee as there are three parties, the primary basis for considering a
contract as that of guarantee.
c) It is a contract of indemnity as the liability that is sought to be covered might not even arise.
d) It is a contract of guarantee as there is an existing debt that Harry has sought to discharge.
3. Simone, an auctioneer, acting on the instruction of Faraz sold an antique vase which subsequently
turned out to belong to someone else other than Faraz. When the true owner sued Simone, she in
turn sued Faraz for indemnity. Can Simone and Faraz be considered in a contract of indemnity?
a) No, as Faraz had not promised Simone to make good her loss in case she suffered any damages.
b) Yes, as Faraz had expressly promised Simone that the vase belonged to him.
c) No, as this is a contract for guarantee as there are three parties.
d) Yes, as this is a case of an implied indemnity.
4. Holmer guarantees payment to Sam, a tea-dealer, to the amount of $100, for any tea he may from
time to time supply to Neil. Sam supplies Neil with tea to above the value of $100, and Neil pays Sam
for it. Afterwards, Sam supplies Neil with tea to the value of $200. Neil fails to pay. Is Holmer liable
to pay Sam any amount upon Neil‘s failure to do so?
a) No, as Holmer‘s guarantee was only one-time.
b) No, as Holmer is not responsible for Neil‘s failure to pay in a second transaction.
c) Yes, Holmer is liable to pay Sam an amount to the extent of $100.
d) Yes, Holmer being the surety has to pay Sam any loss he suffers due to failure on Neil‘s part.
5. Consider Holmer and Sam have also entered into a separate contract that he will help Sam with legal
fees/expenditure in case Neil fails to make payment for the tea-supply and Sam wishes to sue him for
non-payment. Neil defaults on payment and is untraceable by Sam. What is the nature of the
contract between Sam and Holmer?
a) It is a contract of guarantee as there are three parties: Holmer, Sam and Neil.
b) It is a contract of guarantee as there is an existing debt that Neil owes to Holmer.
c) It is a contract of indemnity as Holmer is responsible for whatever loss is caused to Sam due to
Neil‘s conduct.
d) It is a contract of indemnity as Holmer has promised to cover for a contingency that may arise in
the future.
Passage 7
Cheating is a criminal and wrongful offense and it has many crimes in relation to it. It exists in various
forms. In layman terms, cheating can be a dishonest or unfair act to gain an advantage over the other
person or party. Cheating is saying or doing something wrong which makes someone believe that a thing is
true when actually it is not.
Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) states:
415. Cheating. – Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so
deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property,
or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or
omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to
that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation.- A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.
As can be seen from the definition above, there are certain constituents of this offence. They are dealt with
in more detail as follows:
i. Acting dishonestly: Section 24 of the IPC defines the term ‗acting dishonestly‘ as, ―when the
doing of any act or not doing of any act causes a wrongful gain of property to one person or a
wrongful loss of property to a person, the said act is done dishonestly.‖
ii. Property: Property has a much larger meaning. It does not only include money but other things also.
These other things are those which are measurable in terms of money. Moreover, the property should
be in full-fledged ownership of the person and he must have the complete right to enjoy its use.
(9)
iii. Fraudulently: Being fraudulent means something which includes deception and mainly criminal
deception. Hence, it is evident from fraud. According to section 25, ―a person is said to do a thing
fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.‖
iv. Mens rea: Mens Rea is an intention or action to perform a crime. It has to be proved beyond any
doubt that the accused deliberately contributed to a crime. Moreover, that crime must affect another
person‘s property.
1. Himesh, a young singer wants to participate in a music competition in his city. He approaches
Kailash who he has heard of being in the music industry in some capacity. Kailash tells Himesh that
he has performed at various music festivals across the country and that he has three albums to his
name. Taking his word to be true, Himesh pays Kailash a certain amount in order to train him
musically. However, later, Himesh discovers that Kailash has only one album to his name and that
he has only performed in the northern part of the country, and nowhere else. Can Kailash be held
liable for cheating?
a) No, as Kailash did not cause any damage to Himesh either in his body, mind, reputation or
property.
b) No, as Kailash did not have the requisite mens rea to perform the crime of cheating.
c) Yes, as Kailash dishonestly concealed the facts, thereby cheating Himesh.
d) Yes, as Himesh later discovered that Kailash had lied to him.
2. Yash borrowed Harsh‘s (his brother) guitar for a week. While the guitar was with Yash, his friend
Parth told him that certain strings in the guitar need to be tuned properly and that he can get it done
from a shop he often visits. Yash handed the guitar to Parth, with the assurance that he would get it
back in two days. However, Yash later discovers that Parth ran away with the guitar and his brother
Harsh mentioned that the guitar strings was perfectly in tune. Can Parth be held liable for cheating
Yash?
a) Yes, as Parth made Yash give him the guitar by deceiving him.
b) Yes, as Parth had the intention of stealing the guitar from Yash.
c) No, as Parth did not intend to defraud Yash.
d) No, as the guitar did not belong to Yash.
3. Consider that in the above question, Harsh sought to claim the offence of cheating. Can Parth be
held liable for cheating Harsh?
a) Yes, as the guitar belonged to Harsh, only he can claim the offence of cheating.
b) Yes, as it was Harsh who was deprived of his property.
c) No, as Parth caused Yash to depart with the guitar by deceiving him.
d) No, as Harsh did not have any knowledge about these events.
4. Amir and Zainab enter into a contract for the supply of handmade paper to be supplied by Amir to
Zainab, on the receipt of which Zainab would pay an amount stipulated in the contract. On the day of
delivery of the goods, Zainab doesn‘t receive any product but Amir claims that he delivered the goods
to Zainab‘s sister, thereby performing his part of the contract. In reality, Amir has not delivered the
paper. When Zainab discovers this, she sues Amir for the offence of cheating. Can Amir be held liable
for the same?
a) No, as Amir did perform his part of the contract, i.e. delivery of the handmade paper.
b) No, as Amir did not intend to cause any damage to Zainab.
c) Yes, as Amir deceptively led Zainab to believe that he performed his part of the contract.
d) Both a & b.
5. Consider that in the above question, Amir makes the delivery of the product on time to Zainab.
However, as the product had some defects, Zainab refused to make payment. Can Zainab be held
liable for cheating Amir?
a) Yes, as she deceptively led Amir to believe that she would pay the amount upon delivery of the
product.
b) Yes, as she intentionally wanted to deprive Amir the amount upon delivery of the goods, as per
the contract.
c) No, this is only an issue of breach of Contract which has to be decided on merits.
d) No, as the product had defects, Zainab was not bound to pay Amir the amount stipulated under
the contract.
(10)
Passage 8
Section 403 & Section 404 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deal with criminal misappropriation of
property. Section 403 of the IPC deals with criminal misappropriation and prescribes the penalization for
the offence. Section 404 deals with dishonest misappropriation of a deceased person‘s property.
Section 403 reads:
403. 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.
Explanation 1.- A dishonest misappropriation for a time only is a misappropriation with the meaning
of this section.
Explanation 2.- A person who finds property not in the possession of any other person, and 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.
To establish the offence of misappropriation following ingredients have to be satisfied:
i. the defendant embezzled property and converted the property to his own use;
ii. he does so dishonestly;
iii. the property is movable; and
iv. the movable property belonged to the complainant.
If the intention wasn‘t dishonest at the time possession was taken, a subsequent alter of intention makes
the possession unlawful and leads to misappropriation. The explanation to Section 403 emphasizes that in
case the finder of goods has taken all precautions to ascertain the true owner and kept the goods for a
reasonable time for restoring it to the actual owner, he may use the property for himself if the actual owner
isn‘t found.
1. Gagan lent his book to Shilpa. The day Gagan went to collect his book from Shilpa‘s home, Shilpa
wasn‘t there, but he was let in by her mother, saying that Shilpa had left his copy at her study table.
Gagan retrieved the same and headed back. The following day, Shilpa accuses Gagan of
misappropriating her copy of the book. Shilpa had another copy of the book which Gagan took,
leaving his copy behind. Is Gagan liable for dishonestly misappropriating Shilpa‘s book?
a) Yes, as Gagan should have verified the copy of the book before taking it from Shilpa‘s house.
b) Yes, as Gagan dishonestly took Shilpa‘s copy in order to put it to his own use.
c) No, as Gagan was under the impression that he took his copy from Shilpa‘s house.
d) No, as Gagan is under no liability to verify his own copy of the book before he retrieves it.
2. Consider that in the factual scenario described in the above question, even after Shilpa informed
Gagan that the copy he took was hers, Gagan silently retained the copy. Can Gagan be held liable for
misappropriation?
a) No, as Gagan still believes that the copy he took from Shilpa‘s house was his.
b) No, as Gagan hadn‘t taken the copy of the book with a dishonest intention, in the first place.
c) Yes, as even after being made aware that the copy was not his, Gagan retained the copy of the
book.
d) Yes, as Gagan never had the intention of returning the book to Shilpa.
3. Consider that in the factual scenario presented in the above question, after Shilpa made Gagan aware
that the book with him was her copy, Gagan informed her that he would return it, but only after a
week. Shilpa agrees to this. Can Gagan be said to have dishonestly misappropriated the copy for the
week he did not return the copy to Shilpa?
a) Yes, as despite knowing that the copy was not his, Gagan did not return the book.
b) Yes, as Gagan intentionally retained the copy of the book.
c) No, as Gagan has the intention of returning the book after the week is over.
d) No, as Gagan did not have dishonest intention of taking the book from Shilpa.
(11)
4. Walking on an empty road, Sameer spots a diamond ring on the pavement. He immediately sells the
ring for a hefty amount and pockets the money. Can Sameer be held liable for misappropriating the
ring?
a) No, as he made all efforts to locate the owner of the ring.
b) No, as he did not have the intention of selling the ring on the first go.
c) Yes, as he did not take all precautions before ascertaining the true owner of the ring before selling it.
d) Yes, as Sameer never had the intention of finding the owner of the ring, in the first place.
5. Consider that in the factual scenario presented in the above question, Sameer discovers the true
owner of the ring. He hands over the ring to the owner. However, before he does that, he had given
the ring to his wife, Smita, claiming that he had bought it for her. But he had to take it back from
Smita to return it to its true owner. Smita now seeks to sue Sameer for misappropriating the ring.
Can Sameer be held liable in this situation?
a) Yes, as Smita genuinely believed that the ring given to her was bought by Sameer.
b) No, as the ring never belonged to either Sameer or Smita in the first place.
c) Yes, as Smita had no means of knowing that Sameer had picked up the ring.
d) No, as Sameer never had the intention of dishonestly depriving Smita of the ring.
Passage 9
Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act lays down the simple principle that an agreement to do an act
impossible in itself is void. The second paragraph of Section 56 lays down the effect of subsequent
impossibility of performance. Sometimes the performance of a contract is quite possible when it is made
by the parties. But some event subsequently happens which renders its performance impossible or
unlawful. In either case, the contract becomes void.
The section also states that when a person has promised to do something which he knew or could have
reasonably known, and which the promisee did not know to be impossible or unlawful, such promisor will
have to provide compensation to such promisee for any loss which the promisee might have sustained
through the non-performance of the promise.
A change in circumstances often leads to frustration of contracts. A contract may be frustrated where there
exists a change in circumstances, after the contract was made, which is not the fault of either of the parties,
which renders the contract either impossible to perform or deprives the contract of its commercial
purpose. Where a contract is found to be frustrated, each party is discharged from future obligations under
the contract and neither party may sue for breach. The Supreme Court in the case of Satyabrata Ghose v.
Mugneeram Bangur & Co had observed that ―This much is clear that the word ‗impossible‘ has not been
used here in the sense of physical or literal impossibility. The performance of the act may not be literally
impossible but it may be impracticable and useless from the point of view of the object and purpose
which the parties had in view; and if an untoward event or change of circumstances totally upsets the
very foundation upon which the parties rested their bargain, it can very well be said that the promisor
finds it impossible to do the act which he promises to do.‖
It has also been ruled in the case of Maritime National Fish Ltd v. Ocean Trawlers Ltd that the essence of
'frustration' is that it should not be due to the act or election of the parties. Frustration should arise
without blame or fault on either side. Reliance cannot be placed on a self-induced frustration.
1. Xavier enters into a contract with Connor, a magician by profession. The contract stipulates that
Connor will perform a magic show at the birthday party of Xavier‘s daughter, making a pot of gold
literally appear out of thin air, on the payment of an advance. Connor claims that this is not illusion,
but a real magic work. At the party, when Connor is about to perform the magic trick, he trips over a
chair and hits his head on a table, thereby fainting. Later, Xavier sues Connor for non-performance
of his promise under the contract. Which of these statements is true?
a) Xavier will succeed in his claim as Connor had already taken an advance amount for his
performance, therefore he was obligated to carry out his promise under the contract.
b) Connor can sue Xavier for negligence as the latter was not careful enough because of which
Connor suffered injuries.
c) The contract is void as making gold appear out of thin air is an impossible act, therefore a contract
to do such an act is void.
d) Connor‘s injury was not foreseeable by anyone, hence Xavier suit ought to be rejected.
(12)
2. On August 23, 2018, Maria and Rebello enter into a contract to get married on January 1, 2019.
Their respective families are witnesses to this contract. However, between September and November
2018, Rebello‘s mental condition starts deteriorating and he is subsequently hospitalized in
December, 2018 at a mental institution. Maria and her family is not aware of such developments and
come to know of it only in January 2020. Maria asks for your legal advice. What would you suggest?
a) Maria‘s parents should sue Rebello‘s family for committing fraud in not having told them about
Rebello‘s mental condition before the two of them entered into a contract of marriage.
b) Maria should sue Rebello for compensation as he failed to perform his obligations under the
contract they entered into.
c) The contract to enter into marriage is void as the event which led to its non-performance
happened subsequent to the contract.
d) None of the above
3. ABC, a shipping company based in Portugal, enters into a contract with Fortune Growth, a gas
pipeline company to transport coal to one of its subsidiaries in the Netherlands. However, in the
intervening period, Portugal declares war on the Netherlands because of which all cargo ships from
Portugal are not allowed to depart for the Netherlands. The non-supply of coal causes significant
financial losses to Fortune Growth. Which statement best describes the situation?
a) Fortune Growth should claim compensation from ABC for failure to perform its duties under the
contract.
b) Fortune Growth should sue the government of Portugal for having caused the non-performance of
its contract.
c) The contract between ABC and Fortune Growth is void because it was for an illegal purpose.
d) The contract between ABC and Fortune Growth is void because its performance is rendered
impossible because of the war.
4. Arunima, a model, enters into a contract with a production company for shooting a song video. The
contract requires her to shoot for at least 5 hours every day for a specific period of 3 weeks on a
beach. However, during the second week, the weather department issued warnings of strong tidal
waves, restricting anyone‘s access to the beach. The song video could not be shot in 3 weeks. Can the
contract said to be frustrated?
a) No, the production company could have waited for the tidal waves to abate and shoot it after that.
b) Yes, as strong tidal waves are not the fault of either party which rendered the contract impossible
to be performed.
c) No, as the song could have been shot in any other location.
5. A enters into a contract with B to supply goods to his office. A decides to procure the goods from C.
However, on the date of delivery of goods to B, A tells him that because C was unable to import the
goods subsequent to the contract between A and B, he could not supply the same to B. Does the
contract between A and B stand frustrated?
a) Yes, the event happened subsequent to the contract causing the contract to not be performed.
b) No, A‘s obligations under the contract continue to exist as the procuring of goods by A can
possibly be done by more methods than just procuring it from C.
c) Yes, as A cannot be held responsible for C‘s behaviour.
Passage 10
Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code makes adultery a punishable offence, but not equally so. The section
is applicable only to ―whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has
reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man‖, and goes
on to state that ―in such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.‖
Section 497 is part of the original penal code, drafted in 1860, and reflects the Victorian morality of its
colonial framers. The plain language of the section reveals four things: first, even though adultery requires
two participants, it is only the man who is deemed to be the offender; second, the woman is not even
deemed to be an ―abettor‖ to the offence; third, adultery does not even apply if a married man has sexual
intercourse with an unmarried woman; and fourth, the offence is curable if the third party in the case —
the husband — ―consents‖ to the sexual intercourse between his wife and another man. As a corollary to
this, Section 198 in the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that it is only the husband who has the right
(13)
to file a criminal complaint and prosecute the offence of adultery. In short, adultery is a crime, but only if
an unmarried man has sexual intercourse with a married woman, and only if her husband withholds his
consent and decides to prosecute.
This strangely asymmetric character of Section 497 makes sense only if we reflect upon its underlying
logic. First, the Section is based upon sexual stereotypes that attribute sexual agency to men, and passivity
to women; or, in simpler language, men are the seducers (and therefore criminally liable), while women
are simply the seduced, and unable to account for their actions. Second, in limiting the power to prosecute
to the ―aggrieved‖ husband (and not to an aggrieved wife in cases where her spouse has sex outside
marriage), while making the crime itself conditional upon his ―consent‖, the Section is founded upon the
idea that, in a marriage, the status of the wife is akin to that of her husband‘s property.
Whatever the status of these ideas in the 19th century, they are clearly out of step with the founding ideals
of the Indian Constitution, which — among other things — guarantee equality before law and non-
discrimination on account of sex. And in recent judgments, involving the employment of women as
bartenders or as make-up artists, the Supreme Court has made clear that invidious sexual distinctions
founded on generalisations or stereotypes about the nature, character and abilities of the sexes are
inconsistent with the Constitution.
The only hurdle in striking down Section 497 as an outmoded and unconstitutional penal provision is that
in 1954, the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality. In Yusuf Abdul Aziz v State of Bombay, the court
invoked Article 15(3) of the Constitution — which allows the State to make ―special provisions‖ for women
and children — to hold that since Section 497 exempted women from criminal liability, it was protected by
Article 15(3). This was a clear mistake.
(Extracted from The Law on Adultery is Assymetric, by Gautam Bhatia;
https://www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/the-law-on-adultery-is-asymmetric/story
yXFyddEL9RrYQDkY1NNY2K.html. Please note that this article was written before the Supreme Court
struck down Section 497 of the IPC as being violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution)
1. Karan has been married to his wife, Kiran, for the past 4 years. In the last year, Karan started seeing
Ishani, a work colleague, whom Karan assumed to be unmarried. One day, when Kiran got back
home from work, she saw Karan and Ishani having sexual intercourse in her room. Which of the
following statements is true?
I. Karan is guilty of adultery as he had sexual relations outside of marriage.
II. Karan is not guilty of adultery as he did not know or have reason to believe that Ishani is married
to another man.
III. Karan is guilty of adultery as he had not taken Kiran‘s consent to have sexual intercourse outside
of marriage.
IV. Karan is not guilty of adultery as Ishani hasn‘t disclosed her marital status to Karan.
a) Only II b) I and III c) Only III d) Both II and IV
2. Consider that Karan and Ishani have never disclosed their marital status to each other. However,
Karan has heard about the fact that Ishani is married, but he never bothers to confirm it with her,
and continues to have sexual intercourse with her. Can Karan be held guilt of adultery?
a) No, as Ishani never disclosed her marital status to Karan.
b) Yes, as he was still having sexual relations outside of marriage.
c) No, as Kiran never came to know of the fact that Karan was having sexual relations outside of
marriage.
d) Yes, as Karan had reason to believe that Ishani was the wife of another man.
3. Consider Ishani is married and Karan is aware of this fact, but they continue to engage in sexual
intercourse. Kiran feels betrayed and she decides to file a charge of adultery against Karan. Which of
the following statements best describes the legal situation?
a) The court will admit her complaint as Karan has had sexual intercourse outside of marriage,
enough to institute a charge of adultery against him.
b) The court will admit her complaint because both Ishani and Karan were aware of each other‘s
marital status.
c) The court will not admit her complaint because as per law it is only the husband who has the right
to file a criminal complaint against the offence of adultery.
d) The court will not admit her complaint because Kiran sought to file the charge against Ishani and
not Karan.
(14)
4. Consider Ishani‘s husband Rafale comes to know about her relations with Karan. In a bid to make
her jealous, and in connivance with Kiran, the two of them (Rafale and Kiran) also start having
sexual intercourse with the intention of making both Karan and Ishani aware of it. Karan decides to
file a criminal complaint against Rafale for adultery. Which of the following statements best
describes the legal situation?
a) The court is not likely to admit his complaint as Karan is himself guilty of the charge of adultery.
b) The court is likely to admit his complaint as Rafale‘s actions amounted to adultery as per law.
c) The court is not likely to admit his complaint as Rafale‘s actions were more in the nature of a
response to what Karan did.
d) The court is likely to admit his complaint as Rafale‘s actions were done in connivance with Kiran.
5. Consider you are an advocate challenging the constitutionality of Section 497 on the basis that it
violates Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the of the Constitution. Which of the following statements would
weaken your challenge?
I. Men are seducers and are therefore, naturally more criminally liable.
II. Sexual generalisations with their basis in stereotypes are inconsistent with the spirit of the
Constitution.
III. In the institution of marriage, a woman is akin to her husband‘s property.
IV. Statistically, it is men who are more likely to engage in sexual relations outside marriage.
a) Only III
b) Both I and II
c) I and IV
d) I, III and IV
Passage 11
Supreme Court of India in a recent Judgment titled Taj Mahal Hotel v. United India Insurance Company
Ltd. & Others, delivered on November 14, 2019 comprising Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar & Justice
Ajay Rastogi, held that in a case of theft of a vehicle given for valet parking, the hotel cannot claim
exemption from liability by arguing it was due to acts of third parties beyond their control, or that they are
protected by an owner's risk clause, prior to fulfilling its burden as required under Sections 151 and 152 of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
As per Section 148 of the Indian Contract Act, a ―bailment‖ is the delivery of goods by one person to
another for some purpose, upon a contract that they shall, when the purpose is accomplished, be returned
or otherwise disposed of according to the directions of the person delivering them. The person delivering
the goods is called the ―bailor‖. The person to whom they are delivered is called the ―bailee‖. The bailee is
responsible to the bailor for any loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods that had been bailed to him.
By now, it is well established that while a case of robbery by force is visibly beyond a bailee‘s control, in
cases of private stealth, or simple theft where no force or violence is involved, the bailee still has the prima
facie burden of explaining that the loss or disappearance of the goods in his custody is not attributable to
his neglect or want of care, held the Bench. This is because no one apart from the bailee is in a position to
explain the fate of the goods.
Supreme Court stated that, in short, the hotel cannot contract out of liability for its negligence or that of its
workers/staff in respect of a vehicle of its guest under any circumstance. Once the possession of the vehicle
is handed to the hotel staff or valet, there is an implied contractual obligation to return the vehicle in a safe
condition upon the direction of the owner.
Even where there is a general or specific exemption clause, there remains a prima facie burden of proof on
the hotel to explain that any loss or damage caused to the vehicles parked was not on account of its
negligence or want of care as per Sections 151 and 152 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which applies the
reasonable care and prudent man‘s test to a condition where goods are bailed. It is only after this burden of
proof is discharged that the exemption clause can come into force. The burden of proving that such loss or
damage was covered by the exemption clause will also be on the hotels.
(15)
1. Himesh asked Pritam if he could borrow his guitar for the weekend. Pritam agreed to lend him the
guitar on the condition that he return it by Monday as he had to record a song on Monday itself. On
Monday, Himesh handed the guitar to Vishal to deliver it to Pritam‘s house. However, on the way to
Pritam‘s house, Vishal‘s car met with an accident and in the process, the guitar was broken. Pritam
decides to sue Himesh for damages to the guitar. Is Himesh liable to explain the reasons for the
harm to Pritam‘s guitar?
a) No, as Himesh had asked Vishal to deliver the guitar to Pritam.
b) No, as it was Vishal‘s responsibility to safely deliver the guitar to Pritam.
c) Yes, as a bailee, it was Himesh‘s responsibility to return the guitar in the same condition as it had
been bailed to him.
d) Yes, as Himesh made good use of the guitar before returning it to Pritam.
2. Consider that while the guitar was still in Himesh‘s possession, it was stolen from him when he
carried it to a restaurant for playing it to an audience over dinner. There is no sign of any force or
violence having occurred. What is Himesh‘s liability?
a) Himesh has no responsibility to Pritam because the guitar was stolen without his collusion.
b) Himesh has to compensate Pritam for the loss of his guitar.
c) Himesh has the burden of explaining how the loss of Pritam‘s guitar is not because of his neglect.
d) Himesh should sue the restaurant owner as the theft happened within the restaurant premises.
3. Ramesh went out for dinner to a hotel where there was basement parking, at the payment of a ticket
price. He parked the car inside and went up for dinner. While having dinner, he was informed that
all the cars in the parking need to be taken out as there is some leakage in the basement which might
affect the cars as well. Ramesh took the car outside and parked it near the entrance gate. When he
finished his dinner and returned to the parking spot outside the hotel, he saw that his car was
missing. Upon inquiry, he was told that his car was seen being driven by some other, unidentified
men. Ramesh decides to sue the hotel for the loss of his car. What is the liability of the hotel in the
present case?
a) The hotel is the bailee, and as the bailee has the responsibility of any loss to the goods bailed.
b) The hotel is liable to pay compensation to Ramesh as had it not been for the hotel, Ramesh would
have still had his car.
c) The hotel is not liable to pay any compensation to Ramesh as the moment his car was parked
outside, the hotel had no responsibility for its safekeeping.
d) The hotel is at least responsible to explain that the loss of Ramesh‘s car is not accountable to it.
4. Consider that upon discovering the leakage, one of the hotel valets himself parked Ramesh‘s car
outside the hotel and Ramesh was not told about the same. The car was eventually missing from the
parking spot outside. What is the hotel‘s liability in this case?
a) The hotel is not liable to pay any compensation to Ramesh as the moment his car was parked
outside, the hotel had no responsibility for its safekeeping.
b) The hotel is liable to pay Ramesh compensation for the loss of his car because as per Ramesh, the
car was still in the hotel parking.
c) The hotel is not liable to pay Ramesh any compensation as his car had been moved out to prevent
any damage due to the leakage.
d) The hotel should hold the valet accountable for his actions.
5. Hardik handed a sum of money to Narendra with the direction that he deliver the same to Amit by
the next day, in full. On the next day, Narendra reached Amit‘s residence but Amit was not to be
found. Therefore, he handed the money to Amit‘s neighbour, Mohan. A week later, Hardik received a
call from Amit saying that he hasn‘t received the money yet. What is Narendra‘s liability in this case?
a) Narendra is liable as he was required to hand the sum of money to Amit, as per Hardik‘s
directions.
b) Narendra is not liable as he had handed over the money to Mohan, when he discovered that Amit
was not to be found.
c) Narendra is at least responsible for explaining that the loss of money was not due to his neglect.
d) Narendra is not liable as he had no way of knowing that Mohan would not hand over the money to
Amit.
(16)
Passage 12
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 mentions desertion as a ground for divorce. What the section
provides for is that the party needs to have deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than
two years immediately after which petition for a divorce can be presented. Therefore, it can be inferred
that the clause provides for two basic necessities to be fulfilled in order to make desertion as a ground for
divorce: first, that such desertion or separation must be for a continuous period of minimum two years;
and second, such period of two years should be in immediate continuity with time of presentation of such
petition. To make it more clear, there should not be a gap between the period of two years and
presentation of the petition.
Desertion, in brevity, means an absolute repudiation of marital obligations, i.e. putting an end to marital
togetherness. In layman terms, desertion can be interpreted as ―running away‖, i.e., running away of one
spouse from his/her marital obligations. In Bhagirathabai v. Bapurao Devrao, it was held that in the
Explanation towards the end of Section 13(1), the expression ―desertion‖ means the desertion of the
petitioner by the other party to the marriage either without a reasonable reason or against the consent or
wish of the other spouse party to marriage and includes the wilful neglecting behaviour by that other party
to the marriage towards the petitioner. The Supreme Court in Lachman v. Meena interpreted that
desertion in its very essence means the intentional permanent abandonment by one spouse of the other
without the other‘s consent and without reasonable or just cause or justification. It was also held to include
wilful neglect of one of the parties towards the other in a marriage.
In order to prove desertion, there are two elements that are absolute necessities, first is factum deserendi
and secondly, animus deserendi. Hence, the fact of being separated alone cannot amount to desertion, but
has to be accompanied with intention to desert as well. Similarly, only the intention or the thought of
wanting to separate from the spouse without any actus reus will not amount to desertion. This view was
enumerated in Bhupinder Kaur v. Budhi Singh wherein it was observed that merely living way for a long
time period cannot attribute animus deserendi on that party.
The period of two years does not mean an aggregate period of two years, but it meant an unbroken
continuous period which started off when the parties began to live apart and did not live together during
this continuous stretch. This, however, implies that desertion will continue even if parties continue to live
apart for more than two years and will be actionable per se until and unless a petition for separation or
divorce making desertion a ground would not be filed.
1. Eshan and Disha have been married for 4 years, staying in Hyderabad, India. In the fifth year of
marriage, Disha decides to pursue a Ph.D. from Germany, the course funded for 4 years. She leaves
in 2015 due to return in 2019. However, after finishing her Ph.D. program, she found a job in Berlin,
on contract for 2 years. She promises Eshan that she would return after her job, but she finds other
opportunities. However, she does not return even after 3 years have passed. Eshan decides to file for
divorce on grounds of desertion. Which of the following statements is true?
a) Disha has deserted Eshan as she has stayed away for more than two years.
b) Disha can‘t be said to have deserted Eshan as there is no animus deserendi.
c) Disha has deserted Eshan as she hasn‘t returned even after promising to do so.
d) Disha can‘t be said to have deserted Eshan as she had informed Eshan of her job contract.
2. Consider that Disha returned from Berlin after completing her Ph.D. program in 2019. She stays
with Eshan for a period of two years after which she receives a teaching position in Berlin in 2021.
She takes it up, leaving for Berlin in 2021 and stays there till 2024, flying in between Indian and
Berlin to meet her family. Does this constitute desertion by Disha?
a) Yes, as she has stayed away from Eshan for a period of more than two years.
b) No, as the period of desertion is not a continuous period of two years.
c) Yes, as she has no intention of returning to Eshan.
d) No, as Eshan was always aware of Disha‘s intention to take up the teaching position.
(17)
3. Himani and Saurabh got married in 2018 after which they started living in Saurabh‘s parents‘ house
who live in a joint family. In 2019, Himani suggests to Saurabh that they move to an independent
house as the house they live in was very cramped affording little space and privacy to them. Himani
and Saurabh get into an argument at the end of which Himani leaves the house saying that she
would return only when they get an independent house. Two years pass, and she doesn‘t return.
Saurabh files for divorce on grounds of desertion. Do Himani‘s actions satisfy the grounds for
desertion?
a) Yes, as two years of continuous separation has occurred.

b) No, as Himani has valid grounds for leaving the house.
c) Yes, as Himani has no intention of returning to Saurabh.
d) No, as Himani does have the intention to return if and when they get an independent house.
4. Consider that Saurabh buys an independent house in the intervening period. Himani still doesn‘t
return, even after three years have passed. Does this constitute desertion?
a) No, as Himani might still return to Saurabh‘s house.

b) Yes, as Himani‘s intention of staying with Saurabh can be easily satisfied now.
c) No, as the period of two years will be counted from the moment Saurabh purchased the new house.
d) Yes, as Himani‘s action could not be justified even in the first instance.
5. From a reading of the passage, what meaning would you assign to the terms factum deserendi and
animus deserendi?
a) Intention to desert and the actual act of desertion respectively.

b) Desertion of two years or less, and desertion of more than two years respectively.
c) The actual act of desertion, and the intention to desert respectively.
Passage 13
An agreement made with a minor is void ab initio ie., void from the very beginning. Any agreement made
with a minor is not a contract. It is an agreement which does not have any legal effect in a court of law.
Minors‘ agreements are absolutely void and it was so observed in the Privy Council judgment of Mohirii
Bibi v. Dharmadas Gosh. The plaintiff was Dharmodas Ghosh, a minor, who mortgaged his property to the
defendant, a moneylender. The defendant‘s attorney had the knowledge about the plaintiff‘s age at the
time of the contract. The plaintiff later paid only Rs. 8,000 and refused to pay the remaining amount. The
plaintiff‘s mother was his legal guardian at that time, so he commenced an action against the defendant
saying that at the time of making of a contract, he was a minor, so the contract being a void one, he was not
bound by the same. The court held that unless the parties have competence under Section 11 of the Indian
Contract Act, no agreement would be a contract. The agreement was considered to be a nullity and non-
existent in the eyes of law.
Only two types of contracts with a minor are considered valid: a contracts for necessaries and beneficial
contracts of service. Necessaries include items and services that are necessary or indispensable to the
minor‘s health and safety, such as food, lodging, shelter and clothing. In some instances, automobiles are
considered necessaries. The minor‘s and his or her parents‘ economic status can be considered in
determining whether an item is considered a necessary. There is no definition of what constitutes
necessaries in the Indian Contract Act. There is no specific section clearly mentioned or defined the
necessaries too. Judicial pronouncements provide more comprehensive explanation of minor and
comprehensive meaning of necessaries. A minor cannot be bound by a contract entered into for her by a
third party, even though that might be her guardian.
In the case of Sharafat Ali v. Noor Mohd, a promissory note was executed in favour of a minor.
Subsequently, the drawer refused to honour the note on the ground that it is void as it was drawn in favour
of a minor. It was held that since the contract was for the benefit of the minor, he could enforce it.
A contract with a minor cannot be ratified by the minor subsequent to her attaining the age of majority.
She cannot legally ratify an act done on her behalf because the whole question of ratification is based on
the assumption that authority could have been conferred by the person ratifying the acts at the date when
acts were performed. In the case of Nazir Ahmed v. Jiwandas, it was held that if the parties to a void
(18)
contract (due to the minority of one of them) are interested, they can draw up a fresh contract after the
concerned party attains majority. The new contract would require a fresh consideration. The consideration
given under the earlier void contract cannot serve as consideration in the new contract entered into after
attaining majority.
In the case of Smt. M.C. Nagalakshmi and Ors. v. Sri. M.A. Farook, a minor executed a deed with regard
to his interest in an estate. A suit was filed when he attained majority. The person admitted the agreement
and did not repudiate it. It was held that the contract was enforceable to the extent of the minor‘s interest
in the estate.
1. Ramdas, the father of a child actress, Sunayna entered into a contract with a film director, Pradeep,
for the role of his daughter in a film by the director. The father and director agree upon the date and
timings of the filming schedule, the remuneration and release date of the film. However, the week
when the filming is to commence, Sunayna is taken seriously ill and cannot commence the filming.
Ramdas decides to sue the father for breach of contract. Would Ramdas‘s claim be acceptable in a
court of law?
a) Yes, as the contract was entered into by Sunayna‘s father (her guardian) for her benefit.
b) No, as Sunayna cannot be bound by the contract by her guardian.
c) Yes, as the contract between Ramdas and Pradeep is a valid agreement because it is between
people above 18 years of age.
d) No, as this contract would only be valid once Sunayna attains majority.
2. Consider Sunayna is 17 years of age (due to turn 18 in a month), and she herself enters into an
agreement with Pradeep. The filming schedule is to begin after her eighteenth birthday. However,
due to a family emergency, Sunayna is unable to commence filming on the day stipulated in the
contract. Pradeep decides to sue her in court for breach of contract. Would his claim be successful in
a court of law?
a) No, as only Sunayna‘s legal guardian could enter into a contract on behalf of her.
b) Yes, as Sunyana would have turned 18 in a month from the signing of the contract.
c) No, as at the time of entering into a contract, Sunayna was still a minor.
d) Yes, as by the time the filming commenced, Sunayna would have attained majority.
3. In the facts given in above question, consider Sunayna commences filming per schedule and finishes
it on time. As per the agreement, her remuneration is supposed to be released in four tranches upon
completion of filming, within a period of four weeks. She receives the first two tranches in time but
the remaining two are not remitted to her, even after four weeks have lapsed. She decides to sue
Pradeep for breach of contract. Would her claim be successful in a court of law?
a) No, as Sunayna was a minor when the contract was entered into, the contract is void ab initio.
b) Yes, as the remuneration for Sunayna under the contract was for her benefit.
c) No, it is only Sunayna‘s guardian who can enforce the contract in a court of law.
d) Yes, as by the time she commenced her obligations under the contract, she had attained majority.
4. Consider Sunayna is paid the remuneration on time on order of the court, but the court holds the
agreement between her and Pradeep as invalid. However, Pradeep and Sunayna wish to continue
working together and they need to film more scenes. They decide that since Sunayna has now
attained majority, she can authorise the earlier agreement as the film remained the same. Is this
action justified under the law?
a) Yes, as Sunayna has attained majority, she can agree to ratify an earlier contract.
b) No, as agreement entered into when a minor, cannot be ratified post majority.
c) Yes, as Sunayna and Pradeep (both above 18 years of age) have agreed to do this.
d) No, as it is only Sunayna‘s guardian who can ratify an earlier contract.
5. Consider the factual scenario presented in the above question. Which amongst the following is a
valid recourse that Pradeep and Sunayna can take, if they wish to continue filming?
a) Ramdas enters into a fresh contract with Pradeep on behalf of Sunayna.
b) The court appoints a legal guardian (other than Pradeep) to enter into a contract with Pradeep.
c) Sunayna continues to act under the terms of the previous contract.
d) Sunayna enters into a fresh contract with Pradeep, with updated terms and conditions.
(19)
Passage 14
Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 ("Act"), enumerates three issues, i.e. consideration for the
agreement, the object of the agreement and the agreement per se. It creates a limitation on the freedom of
a person in relation to entering into contracts and subjects the rights of such person to the overriding
considerations of public policy, among other things, enunciated under it.
The word "object" used in section 23 connotes "purpose" and does not purport a meaning in the same
sense as "consideration". For this reason, even though the consideration of a contract may be lawful and
real, that will not prevent the contract from being unlawful if the purpose (object) of the contract is illegal.
Section 23 restricts the courts, since the section is not guided by the motive, to the object of the
arrangement or transaction per se and not to the reasons which lead to the same.
Section 23 reads as:
23. What considerations and objects are lawful, and what not.—The consideration or object of
an agreement is lawful, unless— it is forbidden by law; or is of such a nature that if permitted, it would
defeat the provisions of any law; or is fraudulent; or involves or implies injury to the person or property
of another; or the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy. In each of these cases, the
consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or
consideration is unlawful is void.
The words "if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of law" mentioned in section 23 ought to be
understood as referring to performance of an agreement which necessarily entails the transgression of the
provisions of any law. The general rule of law as followed by the courts is based on exception to the maxim
modus et conventio vincunt legem. Meaning: in case the express provision(s) of any law is violated by a
contract, the interests of the parties or of third parties, would be injuriously affected by its fulfilment. The
parties to a contract are permitted to regulate their rights and liabilities themselves, and the court will only
give effect to the intention of the parties as expressed in the contract in accordance with the applicable
laws of the land.
In short three principles arise from the section:
i. an agreement is void, if its purpose is the commission of an illegal act;
ii. an agreement is void, if it is expressly or impliedly prohibited by any law;
iii. an agreement is void, if its performance is not possible without disobedience of any law.
1. David promises to maintain Farah‘s daughter on an annual payment of one lakh rupees, for a period
of 5 years. Is this a valid contract?
a) No, as it is for an unlawful object.
b) No, as it defeats the provisions of another law.
c) Yes, as all the objects and considerations for the contract are lawful.
d) Yes, as an amount of one lakh rupees is an appropriate amount for maintaining a child.
2. Trixie promises Katya to give false evidence in the court in order to drop a prosecution which she has
instituted against Katya for robbery, and Katya promises that she‘ll restore the value of things she
stole from Trixie. Is this a valid contract?
a) Yes, as both of them have agreed to settle the matter between themselves.
b) No, as Katya needs to be prosecuted for her offences.
c) Yes, as Katya has decided to restore the value of the things she stole.
d) No, as their arrangement is for an unlawful object: restraining legal proceedings.
3. Raja is the agent of a real-estate proprietor, Khurana. Usually, Khurana leaves the management of
his properties to Raja, who shows it to prospective purchasers, his only role. One such day, Raja
shows a certain property on the city outskirts to Rafale who agrees to purchase the same. Without
communicating it to Khurana, Raja agrees to obtain the lease of that property for Rafale if Rafale
provides two tickets to a cricket match to be held in the city. Is the agreement between Raja and
Rafale valid?
a) Yes, as Raja is fully authorized by Khurana to do whatever he pleases with this properties.
b) No, as obtaining the lease of the property without Khurana‘s knowledge is an unlawful.
c) Yes, as Raja is the manager of Khurana‘s properties.
d) No, as Raja can do nothing without Khurana‘s permission.
(20)
4. Kennedy promises to superintend, on behalf of Jasmine, a legal manufacture of indigo, and an illegal
traffic of opium. Jasmine promises to pay to Kennedy a salary of 10,000 rupees a year. Is the
agreement between Kennedy and Jasmine valid?
a) Yes, as the agreement only requires supervision by Kennedy and not the actual commission of
illegal activities.
b) No, as the object of the agreement is in furtherance of an unlawful object.
c) Yes, it is only one part of his supervisory duties which requires Kennedy to look over illegal
activities.
d) No, as the salary paid by Jasmine is not sufficient for supervisory duties.
5. A promises to pay B, 1,000 rupees, at the end of six months, if C, who owes that sum to B, fails to pay
it. B promises to grant time to C accordingly. Is the contract between A and B valid?
a) No, as it is C‘s duty to pay money to B.
b) No, as A cannot be held accountable for C‘s failure to pay the amount.
c) Yes, as the object of the contract between A and B is a lawful one.
d) Yes, as C‘s inability to pay does not restrict A‘s ability to pay.
Passage 15
Next to life, what a man cares for the most is their reputation. As per Black‘s Law Dictionary, ‗defamation‘
is the offence of injuring a person's character, fame, or reputation by false and malicious statements. The
term seems to be comprehensive of both libel and slander. Defamation has become a burning issue in the
present times; courtesy the growing media frenzy which has been created over the freedom of speech and
expression as envisaged under article 19 (1) (a). There exists an apprehension in the mind of individuals,
whether in their individual or public capacity, as to which statement of theirs might constitute a furore or
land them behind bars.
Defamation, in law, is attacking another‘s reputation by a false publication (communication to a third
party) tending to bring the person into disrepute. The concept is an elusive one and is limited in its
varieties only by human inventiveness. Although defamation is a creation of English law, similar doctrines
existed several thousand years ago.
The Indian Penal Code protects an individual‘s/ person‘s reputation. It defines ‗defamation‘ as being
committed:
i. Through: (i) words (spoken or intended to be read), (ii) signs, or (iii) visible representations;
ii. Which: are a published or spoken imputation concerning any person;
iii. If the imputation is spoken or published with: (i) the intention of causing harm to the reputation of
the person to whom it pertains, or (ii) knowledge or reason to believe that the imputation will harm
the reputation of the person to whom it pertains will be harmed.
Generally, defamation requires that the publication be false and without the consent of the allegedly
defamed person. Words or pictures are interpreted according to common usage and in the context of
publication. Injury only to feelings is not defamation; there must be loss of reputation. The defamed
person need not be named but must be ascertainable. A class of persons is considered defamed only if the
publication refers to all its members particularly and if the class is very small or if particular members are
specially imputed.
1. Jojo meets his friends at a restaurant. While they are talking, Jojo makes a mention of the local
legislator of his constituency, saying that the electricity bills have been too high and that the
legislator failed on his electoral promise. In reality, the cost of electricity did increase in the recent
past. He also mentions that he wished he never voted for him. The people in the adjoining table are
from the same political party as Jojo‘s constituency‘s legislator. They threaten him with filing
defamation charges against him in court. Is Jojo guilty of defamation?
a) Yes, as he spoke ill of the local legislator without any provocation in a public place.
b) Yes, as he caused harm to the reputation of the local legislator in front of his party workers.
c) No, as the words spoken by Jojo are fact-based which can be evidenced in real life.
d) No, as Jojo‘s words can never harm a politician‘s reputation.
(21)
2. Consider that while talking about his constituency‘s legislator, Jojo also texts it to his brother who
sends it to more people. Can Jojo be said to have defamed the legislator now?
a) Yes, as the text by Jojo was sent in circulation to more people.

b) No, as the words by Jojo remain the same, and he had no control over its spread.
c) Yes, as the reputation of the legislator has taken a considerable hit.
3. Consider that Jojo was not at a restaurant but in a public bus, talking over the phone. Does that
make any difference to your answer to the questions above?
a) Yes, as the possibility of his words reaching more people has increased now.
b) No, as Jojo has no reason to believe that his words would cause a loss of reputation for the
legislator.
c) Yes, as Jojo should be careful speaking about political personalities in public spaces.
4. At a political rally, Brij Bhushan while talking about Manorama, a leader of the opposing political
party, says that she is not an Indian citizen and that her actual family in Europe is known to have a
criminal past. This is proven to be untrue. Can Brij Bhushan said to have defamed Manorama?
a) No, as Brij Bhushan had no reason to believe that his words would cause a loss of reputation for
Manorama.
b) Yes, as Brij Bhushan was speaking at a public rally therefore had full knowledge of the
consequences to Manorama‘s reputation.
c) No, as Brij Bhushan had no intention of causing harm to Manorama‘s reputation.
d) Yes, because citizenship is not relevant to politics.
5. Consider that Brij Bhushan spoke the same things about a woman from his own political party,
would that still be considered defamatory?
a) No, as the person being spoken about is from the same party as Brij Bhushan.
b) Yes, as Brij Bhushan‘s speech would still cause a loss of reputation of the person being spoken
about.
c) No, as Brij Bhushan cannot be said to have intentionally made that speech.
Passage 16
The Indian Contract Act provides compensation for loss or damage caused by the breach of contract. When
a contract has been broken, the party that suffers from such infringement is entitled to receive
compensation for any loss or damage resulting from such infringement. Such compensation shall not be
given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained as a result of the breach.
If an obligation similar to what was created in the contract has not been discharged, any person who fails
to discharge is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default as if that person had
contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract. In estimating the loss or damage resulting from the
breach of a contract, consideration must be given to the means that existed to remedy the inconvenience
caused by the non-performance of the contract.
If the defendant is found liable for breach of contract, the plaintiff is entitled to nominal damages even if
no actual damage is proven. Nominal damages are awarded if there is an infringement of a legal right and
if it does not give the rise to any real damages, it gives the right to a verdict because of the infringement.
In the following circumstances, nominal damages are awarded to the plaintiff:
 The defendant committed a technical breach and the plaintiff himself did not intend to execute the
contract;
 The complainant fails to prove the loss he may have suffered as a result of the contract breach;
 He has suffered actual damage, not because of the defendant‘s wrongful act, but because of the
complainants‘ own conduct or from an outside event;
(22)
 The complainant may seek to establish the infringement of his legal rights without being concerned
about the actual loss. Where there is no basis for determining the amount. The view that nominal
damage does not connote a trifling amount is erroneous; nominal damage means a small sum of
money. Nominal damages have been defined as a sum of money that can be spoken of, but which
does not exist in terms of quantity.
Where the loss is small and quantifiable, the damages awarded, although small, are not nominal damages.
If the market rate on the date of the breach is not proven, the plaintiff shall be entitled to nominal
damages. However, the fact that the buyer does not sustain any actual loss as a result of the seller‘s failure
to deliver the goods is no reason to award the buyer nominal damage.
Damages are said to be liquidated once agreed and fixed by the parties. It is the sum agreed by the parties
by contract as payable on the default of one of them. In all other cases, the court quantifies or assesses the
damage or loss; such damages are unliquidated. The parties may only fix an amount as liquidated damages
for specific types of a breach, then the party suffering from another type breach may sue for unliquidated
damages resulting from such breach.
1. Louis, the owner of a boat, contracts with Dreyfus to take cargo of jute to Kolkata, for sale there,
starting on a specified day. The boat, owing to some avoidable cause, does not start at the time
appointed, whereby the arrival of the cargo at Kolkata is delayed beyond the time when it would have
arrived if the boat had sailed according to the contract. After that date, and before the arrival of the
cargo, the price of jute falls. Who is liable to pay compensation to whom?
a) Dreyfus should pay compensation to Louis as the cargo belonged to him.
b) Louis should pay compensation to Dreyfus as he was the owner of the boat which got delayed.
c) The delay was not the responsibility of either Louis or Dreyfus, so no one is liable to pay
compensation to anyone.
d) Dreyfus should pay compensation to Louis as the fall in price of jute was not Louis‘s fault.
2. Anna sells certain merchandise to Miranda, warranting it to be of a particular quality, and Miranda,
in reliance upon this warranty, sells it to Emily with a similar warranty. The goods prove to be not
according to the warranty, and Miranda becomes liable to pay Emily a sum of money by way of
compensation. What is Anna‘s liability in this?
a) None, as Miranda‘s liability to Emily was independent of Anna‘s liability to Anna.
b) Miranda is liable to be reimbursed the compensation that she paid to Emily, from Anna.
c) Anna should have directly compensated Emily, instead of Miranda doing so.
3. Amar, a builder, contracts to erect and finish a house by the first of January, in order that Paras may
give possession of it at that time to Ravi, to whom Paras has contracted to let it. Amar is informed of
the contract between Paras and Ravi. Amar builds the house so badly that, before the first of
January, it falls down and has to be re-built by Paras, who, in consequence, loses the rent which he
was to have received from Ravi. Which of the following statements is/are true?
I. Amar is liable to pay compensation only to Ravi.
II. Amar should provide compensation to Paras.
III. Paras should compensate Ravi for breach of contract
IV. Amar is solely responsible for Ravi‘s loss.
a) Only I b) Both II and IV
c) Both I and III d) Both II and III
4. Mahendra contracts to buy of Aashish, at a stated price, 50 kilograms of rice, no time being fixed for
delivery. However, Mahendra afterwards informs Aashish that he will not accept the rice if tendered
to him, as he has heard that Aashish supplies it in polythene and not jute bags. Is Mahendra
responsible for breach of contract, and payment of compensation?
a) No, as the packaging of a product is understood to form a part of the contract.
b) Yes, as the later refusal by Mahendra on grounds of packaging which were not discussed before
will cause a loss to Aashish.
c) No, as till the time the rice is supplied to Mahendra, he can demand it in whatever terms.
(23)
5. Amit contracts to repair Jaya‘s house in a certain manner, and receives payment in advance. He
repairs the house, but takes a certain amount of freedom in the manner of repair, which are not
according to contract. Which of the following statements is true?
I. Amit is not liable to pay Jaya any compensation as the contract allowed him to take certain
freedoms with the repair.
II. Amit is liable to compensate Jaya as the repair was to happen in a certain manner as per the contract.
III. The contract itself is void as there is no specification of the manner in which the house is to be
repaired.
a) Only II b) Only III c) Both I and III d) Both II and III
Passage 17
The term Strict Liability refers to the imposition of liability on an individual or entity for losses and
damages without having the need to prove negligence or mistake. Generally in legal action the plaintiff has
to prove that the defendant is liable either by negligence or fault. However, in Strict Liability the plaintiff
only needs to prove that the tort occurred and the defendant was responsible. Strict Liability is a kind of
Tort that makes a person or entity responsible for their acts even when the consequences were
unintentional. Law also imposes liability only on those actions which it feels are naturally dangerous. Strict
Liability is also known as ‗no fault liability‘. In criminal law, strict liability is considered as an exception
whereas in civil was some jurists consider it as a rule because intention is immaterial and the only thing
that matters is that the plaintiff has suffered harm.
One of the early cases where the rule of Strict Liability was first acknowledged was in the case of Ryland vs.
Fletcher. Iin this case, the House of Lords have laid down the rule that a person who, in the course for the
accumulation on it of anything likely to do harm if it escapes, is liable for the interference with the use of
the land of another which results from the escape at the thing from his land. In simple words the rule of
Ryland v. Fletcher states that when a person allows a dangerous substance in their land, and if it escapes,
causes harm to the surrounding people, then that person who brought the substance is liable for the
damage caused.
To sum up, there are some essential conditions which should be fulfilled to categorise a liability under the
head of strict liability.
Dangerous substance: For the purpose of imposing strict liability, a dangerous substance can be
defined as any substance which will cause some mischief or harm if it escapes. Things like explosives, toxic
gasses, electricity, etc. can be termed as dangerous things.
Escape: One more essential condition to make the defendant strictly liable is that the material should
escape from the premises and shouldn‘t be within the reach of the defendant after its escape
Non-Natural Use: To constitute a strict liability, there should be a non-natural use of the land.
However, liability under Strict liability is subject to the following exceptions:
Plaintiff’s Fault: If the plaintiff is at fault and any damage is caused, the defendant wouldn‘t be held
liable, as the plaintiff himself came in contact with the dangerous thing.
Act of God: The phrase ―act of God‖ can be defined as an event which is beyond the control of any human
agency. Such acts happen exclusively due to natural reasons and cannot be prevented even while
exercising caution and foresight
Act of the Third Party: The rule also doesn‘t apply when the damage is caused due to the act of a third
party. The third party means that the person is neither the servant of the defendant, nor the defendant has
any contract with them or control over their work.
Consent of the Plaintiff: This exception follows the principle of violenti non fit injuria.
1. Ramesh grew some plants inside the premises of his garden the leaves of which were poisonous.
Suresh enters into his garden and eats one of the leaves and falls ill. He claims compensation from
Ramesh under the rule of strict liability. Decide.
a) Ramesh is strictly liable for growing poisonous plants inside his garden.
b) Ramesh is not strictly liable as Suresh entered the garden himself and it was his fault that he came
into contact with the plants.
c) Ramesh is strictly liable for making non-natural use of his land.
d) Ramesh is not liable as it was an act of God.
(24)
2. Raj built a reservoir over his land. One day, one of his neighbors, without Raj‘s knowledge, emptied
his drain through the reservoir as a result of which the drain overflowed into Simran‘s garden.
Simran sues Raj under the rule of strict liability. Decide.
a) Raj is strictly liable as water from his reservoir escaped.
b) Raj is strictly liable for making non-natural use of land.
c) Both a & b.
d) Raj is not strictly liable as the damage was caused due to act of a third party.
3. Rohit has a pet dog which is often leashed. One day while being unleashed, the pet saw a street dog
and started chasing it. During the chase, the dog saw Sahil and pounced upon him thereby injuring
him. Sahil sues Rohit under the rule of strict liability. Decide.
a) Rohit is strictly liable.
b) Rohit is not strictly liable as a dog isn‘t a dangerous substance.
c) Rohit is not strictly liable as Sahil was also at fault.
d) Both b & c.
4. Riya planted some poisonous trees in his garden. The trees grow and their branches extend well
beyond Riya‘s premises. Raj‘s horse eats a few leaves from one of the branches extending into Raj‘s
garden and dies. Raj sues Riya under the rule of strict liability. Decide.
a) Riya is strictly liable because the poisonous branches extended out of her premises.
b) Riya is not strictly liable because it was Raj‘s fault that his horse ate the leaves.
c) Riya is not strictly liable because it was an act by a third party.
5. A scientist bought some poisonous substances into his premises for an experiment. He keeps them
near an open window. One night, a reasonably strong wind blows and the substances are blown away
to the adjacent road. Raj‘s dog eats those substances and dies. On being sued by Raj, the scientist
claims the defense of act of God. Decide.
a) The scientist is not strictly liable as it was an act of God.
b) The defence of act of God isn‘t available to the scientist since the incident could‘ve been prevented
by exercising caution and foresight.
c) The scientist isn‘t strictly liable as he couldn‘t have foreseen the wind.
d) Both a & c.
Passage 18
The word homicide has been derived from the Latin word ‗homo‘ which means a man and ‗caedere‘ which
means to cut or kill. Thus, homicide means the killing of a human being. Culpable Homicide is defined
under section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It consist of both physical and mental elements. Where
an act is done with the intention of causing death or with such knowledge that the act which he/she is
going to undertake will result in death of the person or would cause such bodily or physical injury that
would lead to his death would satisfy both the physical and mental requirement.
But, not very culpable homicide is murder. The essentials for culpable homicide amounting to murder
have been specified in s.300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This confusion arises due to the annoyingly
similar definitions provided under section 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Culpable homicide is
murder only in certain cases and there are certain cases where culpable homicides do not amount to
murder. The ingredients of culpable homicide amounting to murder differ from culpable homicide not
amounting to murder. It is pertinent to mention the two sections here.
According to section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, ―Whoever causes death by doing an act with the
intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or
with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. ―
According to s. 300 of the Indian Penal Code, Culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is
caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—
(Secondly) — If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be
likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—
(Thirdly) — If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be in-flicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—
(25)
(Fourthly) — If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in
all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without
any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
As can be seen, the difference between the two is very minute but it can be found out by detailed study of
the language of both the Sections. As can be seen, murder requires a higher degree of intention or
knowledge than culpable homicide.
1. Which of the following is correct?
a) All murders are culpable homicide. b) All culpable homicides are murder.
c) Some culpable homicides are murder. d) Both a & c.
2. A has undergone a bypass heart surgery last week and is still recovering. His close friend, B,
accompanied him to the hospital and was present throughout. While they were debating over who of
Cristiano Ronaldo or Messi was better, B suddenly hit A on his chest as a consequence of which A
died. The blow wasn‘t sufficient to cause death of an ordinary person but death resulted only because
A had recently undergone a bypass surgery. Decide.
a) A is guilty of culpable homicide. b) A is guilty of murder.
c) Both a & b. d) A is not guilty.
3. During a hunting expedition, A shot at a bird but missed. The bullet accidentally hit B who, unknown
to A, was hiding behind the bush while playing hide & seek with his friends. B died. Decide.
a) A is guilty of Culpable Homicide. b) A is guilty of murder.
c) Both a & b. d) A is not guilty.
Directions for Questions 4 and 5 are based on the following fact situation:
A knows that Z is hiding behind a bush, but B does not know it. A induces B to fire at the bush. B does so
and as a consequence Z dies.
4. Decide in case of A.
a) A is guilty of murder.
b) A is guilty of culpable homicide
c) A is not guilty of either murder or culpable homicide.
d) Both a & b.
5. What offence has B committed?
a) B is guilty of murder.
b) B is guilty of culpable homicide.
c) B is not guilty of either murder or culpable homicide.
d) Both a & b.
Passage 19
An encounter is a euphemism used especially in India, to describe extra-judicial killings in which police or
the armed forces are involved. A ―fake or a staged encounter‖ happens when the police or the armed forces
kill the suspects when they are unarmed or in custody, and the police claim that they had to shoot in self-
defense. In such cases, the police may plant weapons and other evidences near the dead body to provide
justification for the killing. Since October 1993, 2560 cases of police encounters have been brought into the
notice of National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Of them, according to the NHRC, 1224 cases have
been found fake encounters. It means that roughly every second police encounter is fake in the country.
It is pertinent to note that there is no provision in Indian law directly authorising encounters of criminals
howsoever, grievous crime he is charged with but there are certain enabling provisions, which may be
construed to vest police with certain powers to deal with criminals. In almost all cases where encounter
have taken place, it is done for the self-defense of the police officer. This generally happens when the police
is trying to arrest the criminal, but the criminal opens fire or tries to escape. Right to private defense is
recognized through section 96 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The provision states that, ―nothing is an offence
which is done in the exercise of the right of private defense ‖According to section 100 of the IPC, in cases
where there exists reasonable apprehension in mind of police officer that there exists threat to life or limb,
they are justified in exercising right of self-defense which may also extend to causing death.
(26)
Also, according to the exceptions to murder contained in section 300,
(a) Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private
defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the
person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any
intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
(b) Culpable homicide is also not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public
servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and
causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due
discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is
caused.
The sanction for encounter is partially expressed also in other statutes as follows-Criminal Procedure Code
Section ―46 (2) If such person forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him, or attempts to evade the arrest
such police officer or other person may use all means necessary to effect the arrest. (3) Nothing in this
section gives a right to cause a death of a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or
with imprisonment for life.‖ It is evident from the language of the section that law permits to use all means
necessary to effect arrest of the person however imposes an inherent limitations on this right, with respect
to minor offences not punishable with death or life imprisonment.
1. Sartaj, a police officer, chases Ganesh Gaitonde, a criminal. He finally gets hold of Ganesh and finds
him unarmed. Sartaj then shoots Ganesh because he believes people like Ganesh deserve no place in
the society. Ganesh dies. On being charged with murder, Sartaj claims the defence of the act being
necessary for discharge of his duty as a public servant. Decide.
a) Sartaj is not guilty of murder as he was performing his duty as a public servant.
b) Sartaj is guilty of murder as killing Ganesh wasn‘t necessary to discharge his duty.
c) Sartaj is guilty of murder as he had ill will towards Ganesh.
d) Both b & c.
2. Bunty, a dacoit, gets hold of Jai who had informed on him and threatens to kill him. He assaults Jai
and then takes out a pistol and points it towards Jai. Jai made several efforts to free himself, but
failed. Jai finally takes out a knife in his pocket and stabs Bunty which results in Bunty‘s death.
Decide if Jai is guilty of murder.
a) Jai is guilty of murder.
b) Jai is not guilty of murder as he killed Bunty while exercising his right to private defence.
c) Jai is not guilty of murder as Bunty was a dacoit.
d) Jai is guilty of murder as he had premeditated to kill Bunty.
3. According to section 379 of the IPC, whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Ashok is
accused of theft and the police set out to arrest him. He tries to evade him and the police officer
shoots him dead. The police officer claims immunity under Section 46 of the CrPC. Decide.
a) The police officer was right in killing Ashok as he was trying to evade arrest.
b) The police officer cannot be accused of murder as he is protected by s. 46 of the CrPc.
c) Both a & b.
d) The police officer cannot avail benefit of section 46 CrPC as the maximum punishment for theft is
three years imprisonment or fine.
4. Which of the following is true?
a) Culpable homicide is never murder. b) Culpable homicide is always murder.
c) Culpable homicide is sometimes murder. d) None of the above.
5. Which of the following is true?
a) According to the passage, all encounters in India are fake.
b) s. 46 of the CrPc allows the police officer to kill anyone evading arrest, irrespective of the offence
the person is accused of.
c) A police officer cannot exercise right to self defence even if there is threat to his life or limb.
(27)
Passage 20
Agreement in restraint of trade is void under Section 27 of the Contract Act. That is, any agreement that
debars one person from starting or continuing his trade or profession, in return for some consideration is
void. Therefore, any agreement stopping a person from trading in the manner he likes or wherever he
likes, on an agreement with other party, in which the other party benefits from him stopping his trade or
profession, will be called an agreement in restraint of trade. Apart from two exceptions, which we will
discuss below, all agreements in restraint of trade are void. The two exceptions lie in Sale of Goodwill and
Partnership Act.
The background for delegitimizing an agreement in restraint of trade lies in the history of conflict between
free markets and the freedom of contracts. Ensuring freedom to the contract would mean legitimizing
agreements in restraint of trade, which would result in parties agreeing to curb competition. Yet, it is
important to understand that these agreements are void, not illegal. Which means, these agreements are
not unlawful to make, they are just not enforceable in a court of law if either of the parties fails to perform
his part of the agreement. Unlike the common law, even partial agreements in restraint of trade or
reasonable restraint are not valid under the Contract Act.
However, there is an exception to the one who sells goodwill of a business with a buyer to refrain from
carrying on a similar business, within specified local limits so long as the buyer, or any person deriving
title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein provided that such limits appear to the
Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of business.
[Source: https://blog.ipleaders.in/agreements-in-restraint-of-trade-marriage-and-legal-proceedings/]
1. Shalini has a business of office supplies and books in a locality in Bareilly. A person Zahida is
planning to open her business of similar goods in the same locality. Fearing competition in the
market, Shalini enters into an agreement with Zahida not to open her business in the area for 15
years, and as a consideration promises to pay a certain sum of money to her every month. Later,
Shalini fails to pay the sum agreed upon. Zahida tries to take the matter in a court of law. Decide.
The agreement being void, Zahida has no case.
a) Shalini is liable to pay because Zahida agreed to not open her business for the sum of money.
b) Shalini is not liable because Zahida can now open her business.
c) Shalini is not liable because the contract is a restraint of trade.
d) Shalini is liable because the contract is valid as it has a consideration.
2. The parties were businessmen in Calcutta. The defendant, Rajcoomar suffered loss due to the
plaintiff‘s competition and entered into an agreement with the plaintiff that if he closed his business
there, he would pay him all the advances he had made to his workmen. When the defendant failed to
pay, the plaintiff filed a suit to recover the amount. Is the claim valid?
a) Yes, because there was a consideration in this agreement.

b) Yes, because Rajcoomar didn‘t keep up his end of the agreement.
c) Yes, because the life of the workmen was also connected to this.
d) No, because it was restraint of trade.
3. Thorsten Nordenfelt was a manufacturer of guns in Sweden and England. Thorsten sold his business
to a company, which then transferred the business to Maxim Nordenfelt. At this time, Thorsten
entered into an agreement with Maxim that he would not engage in the manufacture of guns for 25
years, other than what he manufactures on behalf of the company. Later, Thorsten broke his vow
claiming that the agreement was not enforceable as it was in restraint of trade. Was the contract
valid? The decision of the court was in Thorsten‘s favour.
a) No, because there was no consideration in the agreement.

b) No, because he was restrained in manufacturing of guns.
c) No, because he was still manufacturing on behalf of the company.
d) Yes, because Thorsten wasn‘t completely restrained from practicing the trade.
(28)
4. Samiksha was the owner of a fleet of buses that used to ply between Pune and Mahabaleshwar. The
defendant also had a similar business in the same area. To avoid competition, the plaintiff bought
the defendant‘s business along with the goodwill, and by contract made him agree not to open a
similar business in the area for 3 years. The defendant did not comply and started his business. Was
the agreement valid?
a) No, because 3 years is a long a time.
b) No, because the consideration was inappropriate.
c) Yes, because it was a bilateral contract.
d) Yes, because the goodwill was also bought.
5. A Company was licensed to manufacture liquor and beer but it confined its business to produce only
―sake‖, Japanese liquor made from rice. Its only customer was the government. It entered into an
agreement with another wine and beer manufacturing company by which it sold its business and
goodwill of manufacturing wine and beer, but not the right to produce sake. Was the agreement
valid?
a) Yes, because it sold the goodwill of the company.
b) Yes, because the company had the right to produce sake.
c) Yes, because there was no restraint of trade.
d) No, because the agreement restrains trade.
Passage 21
Vicarious liability is a word that combined with two elements which are vicarious and liability. Vicarious
means felt or experienced by reading or watching about somebody else to do something rather than by
doing it yourself. And, liability means the state of being legally responsible for something. Therefore,
vicarious can be defined as a concept used to impose strict liability on a person who does not have primary
liability, that is, not at fault. Literally, it means that one person is liable for the torts of another.
here are a variety of situations in which a party may be charged with vicarious liability. A case in point,
parents may be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of their children. Besides, the employer is
liable for the torts of his employee. However, this liability arises only when the employee is acting the
course of his or her employment. It is important to note that vicarious liability could be established even
when the claimant could not identify which employee breached the duty of care
The doctrine of respondeat superior is regarding the employer-employee relationship. The doctrine holds
employers to be responsible for the lack of care on the part of employees (to whom the employers owe a
duty of care). To apply the respondeat superior, the employee‘s negligence must occur within the scope of
her employment. Additionally, it is important to know whether B is an employee of A and also to
determine whether B was within the scope of employment when the negligence act was committed.
An employer can be made liable for the act of his employee only when the act falls within the course of
employment. Course of employment refers to (a) when the employer authorizes the employee to do a
wrongful act or (b) when the employee does an authorized act in an unauthorized manner.
In order to hold the master vicariously liable for acts of the servant, it must be proven that the act was
authorized by him or done during the course of employment. Course of employment refers to a wrongful
act authorized by the master or a wrongful or unauthorized mode of doing, what has been authorized by
the master. An employee who defies an express prohibition by the employer, not to do something, does not
absolve the employer if harm is caused by doing the prohibited act.
The rule of common employment i.e. if both the victim and the wrongdoer were in employment of the
master at the time of wrongful act is an exception to the rule that a master is liable for the wrongs of his
servant committed in the course of employment.
1. Ramesh worked as an attendant at a petrol pump. Although smoking inside the filling station was
expressly banned by the owner, Ramesh often smoked while delivering petrol. One day this lead to a
fire and killed five persons. Decide if the owner is vicariously liable.
a) The owner isn‘t liable as he banned smoking inside the petrol pump.
b) The owner is vicariously liable as the employee‘s defiance of express prohibition does not absolve
the employer if harm is caused.
c) The owner is vicariously liable as the act of smoking was done during the course of employment.
d) Both b & c.
(29)
2. Amit and Piyush worked as drivers and conductors respectively in a bus owned by Rakesh. One day,
Amit without the owner‘s permission, allowed Piyush to drive the bus although he wasn‘t very
proficient at driving. The bus met with an accident and many passengers and Amit himself were
injured. One of the passengers filed a suit against Rakesh claiming compensation for the accident.
Decide the following cases.
a) Rakesh is not vicariously liable as driving a bus was outside Piyush‘s course of employment.
b) Rakesh is vicariously liable as Piyush was one of his employees.
c) Rakesh is vicariously liable as Piyush was doing an authorized way in a wrong manner.
3. Follow the factual scenario of the above question. One day, Amit was driving the bus when it met
with an accident and Piyush was injured. Piyush filed a suit against Rakesh holding him liable for
Amit‘s actions as Amit was under Rakesh‘s employment.
a) Rakesh is vicariously liable for Amit‘s actions.
b) Rakesh is not vicariously liable to Piyush due to the rule of common employment.
c) Rakesh is personally liable for Amit‘s act.
4. Kaypee group was awarded the contract to build the Salt Lake Metro station in Kolkata. The Khadani
group was awarded the contract to build a mall adjacent to the station. Kaypee group ran a bus to
ferry it‘s employees to the work site and the bus staff were explicitly prohibited from carrying anyone
other than the Kaypee group‘s employees. The buses also contained notices regarding same. One
day, Raj, an employee of the Khadani group had boarded the bus. The bus met with an accident and
many passengers including Raj were injured. Decide the group‘s liability to Raj.
a) Kaypee group isn‘t vicariously liable to Raj as they had expressly prohibited the driver from
picking people other than employees.
b) Kaypee group is vicariously liable to Raj as express prohibition when defied does not absolve them
of their duties.
c) The driver is personally liable.
5. X‘s driver drove recklessly and drove over a pedestrian while going to pick X from office. Decide X‘s
liability.
a) X is vicariously liable as it was during the driver‘s course of employment.
b) X is not vicariously liable as he wasn‘t in the car.
c) X is not liable as the driver drove recklessly.
Passage 22
The tort of Negligence is said to have been committed when there was a duty of care and there was a
breach of this duty as a result of which damages were caused. In order to win a negligence case, the
plaintiff (the person injured) must prove the following four elements to show that the defendant (the
person allegedly at fault) acted negligently: the defendant owed a legal duty to the plaintiff under the
circumstances; the defendant breached that legal duty by acting or failing to act in a certain way; it was the
defendant's actions (or inaction) that actually caused the plaintiff's injury; and the plaintiff was harmed or
injured as a result of the defendant's actions.
However, to prosecute a medical professional for negligence under criminal law it must be shown that the
accused did something or failed to do something which in the given facts and circumstances no medical
professional in his ordinary senses and prudence would have done or failed to do. The hazard taken by the
accused doctor should be of such a nature that the injury which resulted was most likely imminent.
In Jacob Mathew's Case, the Court clearly held that, in criminal law, medical professionals are placed on a
pedestal different from ordinary mortals. It was further held that to prosecute the medical professionals
for negligence under criminal law, something more than mere negligence had to be proved. Medical
professionals deal with patients and they are expected to take the best decisions in the circumstances of
the case. Sometimes, the decision may not be correct, and that would not mean that the medical
professional is guilty of criminal negligence.
(30)
In Anjana Aghnihotri vs. State of Haryana, the court held that a medical professional may be liable to pay
damages but unless negligence of a high order is shown the medical professionals should not be dragged
into criminal proceedings. That is why in Jacob Mathew's case the Court held that in case of criminal
negligence against a medical professional, it must be shown that the accused did something or failed to do
something in the given facts and circumstances of the case which no medical professional in his ordinary
senses and prudence would have done or failed to do.
[Source (edited): Medical Professionals Should Not Be Dragged Into Criminal Proceedings Unless
Negligence Of A High Order Is Shown: SC https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/medical-professionals-
criminal-negligence-152801]
1. Jack and Sparrow are two scientists and they develop a pill that has multiple functions, including
radioactive properties. However, they are still experimenting on it, and hence, the pill is stored safely
in a glass container, which is kept in their lab. Only Jack and Sparrow have access to the lab. One
day, the glass container slips off the table, falls and breaks, thereby releasing the capsule, which on
reacting with the hydrogen in the air, started shooting sparks and bursts into a flame, releasing
gases. William, who lives nearby, hears the commotion in the Lab and goes in to see what is
happening. He later finds out those fumes were banned by the state. He then sues the two scientists,
holding them responsible for the gases which killed his livestock. Will he succeed?
a) Yes, he suffered due to the escape of the Pill.
b) No, it was an Act of God.
c) Yes, the two scientists should be held guilty for the tort of negligence and should compensate
William.
d) No, there was no escape of any fume, and hence, no negligence
2. Rahul was employed under Ajit in a factory in a garage. Rahul could see only from one eye due to
some defect at birth. He was involved in welding. Ajit had provided mandatory goggles to Rahul for
his work, but Rahul considered himself a master of his work and blatantly refused wearing the
goggles despite several orders from Ajit. One day, a piece of metal flew while Rahul was doing his
work and damaged his good eye. He was rendered blind. Is Ajit liable?
a) Yes, because Rahul was employed under Ajit and it was Ajit‘s duty to provide him safety gear.
b) Yes, because Ajit should have been more strict about him wearing the goggles. He was not being a
good boss.
c) No, because Rahul refused wearing the goggles after repeated orders from Ajit.
d) Yes, because Ajit shouldn‘t have given him the welding job due to his partial blindness.
3. Seema was brought to the hospital for a delivery by Dr. Salunkhe. Dr. Salunkhe was on a leave and
hence Seema was attended by Dr. Smita. Seema gave birth to a pre-mature baby who died because of
lack of blood and weakness. Seema wants to sue Dr. Salunkhe for negligence on the account of him
being on leave during her delivery. Is Dr. Salunkhe liable?
a) No, it was just bad luck.
b) No, it was Dr. Smita‘s fault. She should be held liable.
c) No, there was no negligence on Dr. Salunkhe‘s part.
d) Yes, Dr. Salunkhe should‘ve known her delivery date and should have planned his leave
accordingly.
4. Doctor X was accused of medical negligence for allegedly not attending a woman after performing
cesarean operation, which resulted in her death. After the operation, the other doctors, Y and Z, were
of the opinion that the patient needed blood transfusion. They performed the blood transfusion as
per the proper procedure, yet the patient died. The family of the patient wants to sue Doctor X for
criminal negligence. Is the doctor liable?
a) Yes, because they should have been more careful during the procedure.
b) No, because they followed the proper procedure.
c) No, because Doctors Y and Z acted as per their medical opinions and did whatever they thought
was the best thing to do.
d) No, because blood transfusions generally lead to some sort of side-effects.
(31)
5. Rahul was a pre-mature child born with a number of health problems. The doctor treating him
negligently gave him too much oxygen which could be considered a major cause of permanent
blindness. Rahul was later found suffering from permanent blindness. As per medical evidence, the
permanent blindness could have resulted as a result of three of the health conditions Rahul was
suffering from due to premature birth. A suit was brought on behalf of Rahul against the doctor.
Decide.
a) The claim will succeed. Even if there were many possible causes, Rahul suffered from permanent
blindness mainly due to negligence of doctor.
b) The claim will not succeed. The negligence of doctor can‘t be considered the material cause of
permanent blindness.
c) The claim will succeed. The negligence of the doctor resulted into pe rmanent blindness for
Rahul.
d) Question does not provide sufficient data or is vague
Passage 23
A servant and independent contractor are both employed to do some work of the employer but there
is a difference in the legal relationship which the employer has with them. A servant is engaged
under a contract of service whereas an independent contractor is engaged under a contract for
services.
The liability of the employer for the wrongs committed by his servant is more onerous than his liability in
respect of wrongs committed by an independent contractor. It is, therefore, necessary to distinguish
between the two.
In case of a servant, the employer in addition to directing what work the servant is to do, can also
give directions to control the manner of doing the work; but in case of an independent contractor,
the employer can only direct what work is to be done but he cannot control the manner of doing the
work.
Master‘s power of selection of his servant, payment of wages or other remuneration, master‘s right to
control the method of doing the work and master‘s right of suspension or dismissal are the four indicia of a
contract of service.
An independent contractor is one who undertakes to produce a given result without being in any way
controlled as to the method by which he attains that result. In the actual execution of the work he is not
under the order or control of the person for whom he does it, but uses his own discretion in things not
specified beforehand.
A servant is an agent who works under the supervision, control and direction of his employer.
If an independent contractor as distinguished from a servant is employed to do some work and in the
course of the work he or his servants commit any tort, the employer is not answerable.
1. Amit works as a clerk in a pharmaceutical company BioPharma Ltd. He is required to take stock of
the goods supplied and maintain the accounts of the company. Bharat, a friend of Amit, from the
neighbouring village, came to meet Amit in the office. Since Bharat did not have any other
acquaintance in the city, he gave Rs.10,000 that he had with him to Amit for safe keeping. When
Bharat returned to the office the next morning to collect the money, he learnt that Amit had
disappeared with his money. Bharat brought a legal action against BioPharma Ltd. for the recovery
of the money.
a) BioPharma Ltd., would be liable, since Amit received the money while being in the office.
b) BioPharma Ltd., would not be liable, as Bharat had no business transactions with the company.
c) BioPharma Ltd., would not be liable, as safekeeping of money was not part of Amit's duty.
(32)
2. Fortis is a well-known hospital, offering specialised facilities. When a patient comes to the hospital,
the general physician examines him and refers him to the relevant specialist. The brochure of
hospital describes all the doctors as doctors of Fortis. But, in fact, all of them including the general
physician are independent people, using the hospital's facilities under contractual arrangements.
Madan, having gone through the brochure, came to the hospital seeking a cure for a rare kind of
disease. He was admitted into the hospital and operated upon for some heart problem. Among the
various documents he signed at the time of admission, there was a form in which Fortis disclaimed
liability for the negligence of any doctor. Madan signed all the documents mechanically as most of
the patients tend to do under those agonising circumstances. Due to the negligence of operating
surgeon, Madan died. When his kith and kin filed a suit against Fortis alleging negligence, Fortis
resisted the claim on the basis of the document, signed by Madan.
a) Fortis shall not be liable, since the contract signed by Madan, exempted it from any liability.
b) Fortis shall not be liable, since it is not really in a position to control the specialist surgeon in the
course of a complicated operation.
c) Fortis shall be liable, because Madan was drawn into the hospital by its brochure, describing the
various facilities available.
3. Ramesh hired a taxi-cab to go to Delhi Airport. As he started late from his home, he kept on urging
the taxi-driver to drive at a high speed and driver followed the directions; and ultimately due to high
speed an accident took place causing injuries to a person. Is Ramesh liable for the damages ?
a) Ramesh would not be held liable for damages because Ramesh did not know the consequences of
such rash driving.
b) Ramesh would be held liable for damages as he exercised the control by giving directions to the
driver answer.
c) Ramesh would not be held liable for damages because the driver was an independent contractor
and not his servant.
d) Ramesh would not be liable as car was not owned by him.
4. Madhu appointed Paras exclusively for the purpose of driving his tourist vehicle. Madhu also
appointed Vishal exclusively for the purpose of performing the work of a conductor for the tourist
vehicle. During one trip, at the end of the journey, Vishal, while Paras was not on the driver's seat,
and apparently for the purpose of turning the vehicle in the right direction for the next journey drove
it through the street at high speed, and negligently injured Mahira.
a) Madhu could be made liable for the act of Vishal, as he was employed under a contract of service.
b) Madhu is not liable as he was not present at the time of accident.
c) Madhu could not be made liable for the act of Vishal, as his act of driving the vehicle was not in
the course of his employment.
5. Asim had an agency which used to lend carpenters to people on need basis. Asim deputed Baruah to
do some work in Carolene‘s shed. While so doing, Barua took and break from his work. He went out,
lit up a cigarette and threw it as soon as he saw someone coming there. The cigarette remaining lit
caused a fire and the shed was reduced to ashes. Carolene sued Asim and Baruah. Decide.
a) Asim is liable as Baruah was his servant.
b) Asim is liable as he should have chosen responsible people.
c) Asim is not liable as Baruah‘s act was not an authorised act.
d) Asim is not liable but Baruah is liable.
Passage 24
"Bailment" is a term that refers to the act of transferring personal property from one person to another for
the purpose of safekeeping or to allow the person the property is being transferred the ability to control or
use the property on a temporary basis. Bailment is a specific type of contractual agreement. A contract
does not need to be signed for this agreement to be in effect.
(33)
There are two people involved in bailment:
 The "bailee," or the person who is receiving the transferred property.
 The "bailor," or the person transferring the property.
Two things are also worth noting:
 The bailee is only in possession of the property to a specified time period.
 The bailor still owns the property while the bailee possesses it.
Put another way, the definition of bailment is delivering property into temporary possession and control to
another person for some reason. Bailment should not be confused with a sale of property contract, even if
the bailment agreement includes financing from a seller or making payments on the property.
The main difference is this:
 Sale of property contracts intend to transfer ownership to the property's buyer.
 Bailment does not intend to transfer ownership, which is not to be confused with possession.
For bailment to be in effect, the bailee needs to:
 Intend to possess the property.
 Have actual possession of the property.
Further, the bailor must:
 Intend to have the property returned to him or her once the specified time period has elapsed.
 Or, intend the property be returned after the purpose for which it was transferred has been fulfilled.
Consider this example. A man and his wife arrive at a fancy dining venue. They get out of their car and
hand the keys to a valet, expecting him to park the car for them. In this scenario, it's obvious the intention
is for the valet to temporarily possess the car. It should be equally as obvious that the couple expects to get
their car back when they're done eating. Even though the valet possesses the car, and he is responsible for
taking care of it while he does possess it, the couple still owns the car and expects to get it back once the
intended purpose has been fulfilled.
1. A lady wanted to mould her old jewellery in new design. She gave her jewellery box to the gold smith
with a condition that she will put her lock on the box and will keep key, and in morning, she will sit
with the labour to monitor the work and to keep eye on the box. Jeweller accepted her condition.
One day, there was theft in jeweller‘s shop and the box was also broken and jewellery was missing
with other articles of the jewellery shop. She claimed compensation but was divided as the court held
that there is no bailment. Decide the jeweller‘s liability.
a) Jeweller is not liable because there was no actual delivery of the possession.
b) Jeweller is not liable because other things also got stolen.
c) Jeweller is not liable because the lady wanted this.
d) Jeweller is liable because he should have been more alert about such happenings.
2. The plaintiff hired from the defendant for a specific journey of a carriage, a pair of horses and a
driver. During the journey, a bolt in the under-part of the carriage broke, the splinter bar became
displaced, the carriage was upset and the plaintiff injured.
a) The defendant is liable because he should have foreseen such an accident.
b) The defendant is not liable because it was mere stroke of bad luck.
c) The defendant is not liable because such an accident was unforeseeable.
d) The defendant is not liable because he had taken complete care on his part.
3. The plaintiff hired a motor launch from the defendant for a holiday on the river Thames. The launch
caught fire, and the plaintiffs were unable to extinguish it, the fire-fighting equipment being out of
order. They were injured and suffered loss. The defendant was accordingly held liable.
a) The defendant is not liable because the plaintiffs should have checked the fire-extinguising
equipment.
b) The defendant is not liable because the launch catching fire was unforeseeable.
c) The defendant is liable because he should have taken reasonable care for such emergencies.
d) The defendant is liable because he was careless in his job.
(34)
4. Kevin pulls up to the entrance of an upscale restaurant with his wife. The couple exits the car, and
Kevin gives his keys to the valet, so he can park the car. In such a case, it is clear that the valet
intends to take temporary possession of the car, and that Kevin expects to get his car back after
dinner. A person scratches the car. Is the valet liable?
a) Liable because the car was in his possession.
b) Liable because it was the valet‘s job to take care of it.
c) Not liable because the valet‘s job is to park the car.
d) Not liable because the job of looking after every car is impossible.
5. At Hotel in Minnesota, a guest left a valuable ring with the desk clerk, with instructions for the ring
to be delivered to a jeweler who is going to visit the Hotel the next day. The desk clerk lost the ring,
so it was never delivered to the jeweller, and he never reported to either his employer, or the guest,
that it had been lost. Was the hotel liable?
a) Yes, because the guest had given the possession of the ring.
b) Yes, because the desk clerk was irresponsible and lost it.
c) No, because the hotel was not supposed to be doing these odd jobs.
d) No, because the desk clerk did not report this.
Passage 25
―By the expression ‗colour of a legal right‘ is meant not a false pretence, but a fair pretence, not a complete
absence of claim, but a bonafide claim, however weak.‖ This Court further observed that: ―If there be in the
prisoner any fair pretence of property or right, or if it he brought into doubt at all, the court will direct an
acquittal and referred to 1 Hale PC 509 that the best evidence is that the goods were taken quite openly.
The law stated by East and Hale has always been the law on the subject of theft in India and numerous
cases decided by Indian Courts are to be found in which these principles have been applied.‖
Now, the ordinary rule that mens rea may exist even with an honest ignorance of law is sometimes not
sufficient for theft. A claim of right in good faith, if reasonable, saves the act of taking from being theft and
where such a plea is raised by the accused it is mainly a question of fact whether such belief exists or not.
The court in Sanyasi Apparao v. Boddepalli and Laksminarayana, observed: ―It is settled law that where
a bond fide claim of right exists, it can be a good defence to a prosecution for theft. An act does not amount
to theft, unless there be not only no legal right but no appearance of colour of a legal right.‖
1. Arindum owed money to Zeyba for repairing the watch, and hence Zeyba retains the watch lawfully
as a security for the debt. The next day, Arindum takes the watch out of Zeyba's possession, with the
intention of not paying for the repairing charges. Decide Arindum‘s liability.
a) Liable for theft, because did not pay the repairing charges.
b) Liable for cheating, because had no intention of paying the overdue expenses to Zeyba.
c) Liable for theft, because took the watch out of her possession to cause a loss for her.
d) Liable for cheating, because he took the watch in her absence.
2. Saksham takes a sword belonging to Zoravar out of his possession, without Zoravar's consent, with
the intention of keeping it until he obtains money from Zoravar as a reward for its restoration. Is
Saksham liable for theft?
a) Yes, he took the sword dishonestly.
b) Yes, he tried to take money for the restoration of sword.
c) Both of the above.
3. Ace has friendly terms with Zoey, he goes into Zoey‘s room in her absence, and takes away a book
without her express consent for the purpose of merely reading it and with the intention of returning
it. Ace has borrowed several books from Zoey in the past. Can this be called theft?
a) Yes, because the book was taken out of her possession.
b) Yes, because Zoey wasn‘t present there when Ace took the book.
c) No, because Ace has done the same in the past and Zoey was fine be it.
d) No, because there was no dishonest intention.
(35)
4. Rohit, a government employee took a file from the government office and presented it to someone
else for his own personal assignment, and brought it back to the office after two days of taking it
away. Was Rohit liable for theft?
a) Yes, because the intention was dishonest.
b) No, because he returned the file.
c) No, because the file was in his possession in his office.
d) No, because no one saw it.
5. Abhijit goes to Shreya‘s house, sees an expensive pen lying on the table and greedily picks it up. As a
matter of habit, he unknowingly kept it in his pocket and took it back with him to his home. Is
Abhijit liable for theft?
a) Yes, because he moved the pen with dishonest intention.
b) Yes, because he took it from Shreya‘s possession.
c) Yes, because he didn‘t take Shreya‘s permission.
Passage 26
It is not uncommon for some laws to be confusing because they are inconsistent or open to interpretation
in different situations. Murder laws in the United States provide an example. Killing another individual is
considered to be a serious crime except when it is done in self-defense or in battle during a war. U.S. state
legal codes commonly make a distinction between murder in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree. In addition,
there can be 1st and 2nd degree manslaughter. The age and mental state of the killer are often also
extenuating circumstances.
Under Indian law, culpable homicide is classified into two; culpable homicide amounting to murder and
culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Under English law there are several homicide offences:
murder, manslaughter (both voluntary and involuntary) infanticide, death by rash driving and suicide. The
bare reading of the section makes it crystal clear that the first and the second clause of the section refer to
intention apart from the knowledge and the third clause refers to knowledge alone and not intention. Both
the expression "intent" and "knowledge" postulate the existence of a positive mental attitude which is of
different degrees. When several persons assaulted the victim with various weapons but death of the victim
was caused due to head injury caused by the accused whose lone conviction for murder was held to be proper.
The distinction between the two was aptly set forth by Melvill, J., in Reg v. Govinda and by Sarkaria J., in
State of A.P. v. R. Punnayya, ―In the scheme of the Penal Code, ‗culpable homicide‘ is genus and ‗murder‘
its specie. All ‗murder‘ is ‗culpable homicide‘ but not vice versa. Speaking generally ‗culpable homicide‘
sans ‗special characteristics of murder‘ is culpable homicide not amounting to murder. For the purpose of
fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of this generic offence, the IPC practically recognises three
degrees of culpable homicide. The first is what may be called, culpable homicide of first degree. This is the
gravest form of culpable homicide which is defined in section 300 as ‗murder‘. The second may be termed
as ‗culpable homicide of the second degree‘.
1. Pulkit was out in the jungle for hunting. He sees a fowl, and with the intent of killing it and taking it
home, fires four shots at a bush where he apprehends the fowl to be hidden. The shots kills Bahram,
who was behind the bush; Pulkit not knowing that he was there. The court proceeds with the murder
charge on Pulkit.
a) He is guilty, because he should have known that shooting would lead to death.
b) He is not guilty, because he did not intend to kill Bahram.
c) He is not guilty because Bahram was hidden behind the bush.
d) He is not guilty because it was Bahram‘s mistake that he was hidden behind a bush in the jungle.
2. Manish wanted to kill Nandini and had therefore gone to the market to buy explosives to plant in her
house. Manish kept those explosives in his godown as he planned to plant them early next morning.
But as the explosives were stolen in the night, he could not plant them in Nandini‘s house. However,
Nandini came to know about Manish‘s plan and therefore wants to filed a murder complaint against
him. Will she succeed?
a) Yes, because Manish had a clear intention of killing her.
b) No, because the explosives were stolen.
c) No, because no death occurred.
d) No, because the plan was never executed.
(36)
3. Ashish intending to murder Chotu by poison purchases poison and mixes the same with a glass of
water. He gives the same glass of water to the waiter to serve Chotu. The waiter while approaching
Chotu, loses the balance and the glass drops out of his tray. The hotel management finds out and
files a murder charge against Ashish. Will he be convicted?
a) Yes, because he had executed his plan to kill Chotu.
b) No, because the glass dropped and there was no death.
c) Yes, because he had the intention to kill Chotu.
4. The accused with the intention of killing Ganesh, on whose life he had effected some insurance, gave
him poisoned sweetmeat. Ganesh ate a portion of it and threw the rest away which was picked by
Alisha, the 8-year old daughter of accused‘s brother-in-law, without the knowledge of the accused.
She ate it and gave some to Sheela. The two children died from the effect of poison but Ganesh
eventually recovered. Ganesh is to be prosecuted for the offence of double murder. Decide the
offence.
a) Liable, because the intention was complete and the act also led to the act of murder.
b) Not liable, because Ganesh didn‘t die.
c) Not liable, because he never meant to kill Alisha and Sheela.
d) Not liable, because he didn‘t get the insurance amount.
5. Shristi, who was 8 months pregnant, went to draw water from a well was stopped from doing so by
several persons armed with ‗lathis‘ and started abusing her. One of the accused gave a ‗lathi‘ blow on
her head while another kicked her abdomen, as a result of which she died on the spot. Her son who
tried to rescue her was also injured due to several blows he received on his neck. He succumbed to
the wounds. Looking at conduct of the accused it couldn‘t be said that they had common object to kill
the woman or her son. Decide the liability.
a) Liable for murder of both Shrishti and child.
b) Liable for the murder of Srishti only.
c) Liable for murder of the child only.
d) Not liable.
Passage 27
There has been through a sea of change with the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 owing to the
neoteric concepts of divorce and judicial separation being recognized under the law. This Act has been
through various changes while accommodating the different requirements of the Hindu society.
The parties earlier had options to claim divorce on the basis of adultery, cruelty, insanity and other
grounds available under Section 13. Even though divorce by mutual consent was introduced through an
amendment in 1976, there still existed issues wherein both parties suffered from a marriage which lacked
any substance and had no hope for re-conciliation but one party continued the long legal procedure and
did not let the divorce take place. The concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage was pitched in.
Irretrievable breakdown of marriage comes under the breakdown theory where the marriage is supposed
to have reached a point wherein there is complete breakdown of the institution with no scope for retrieval
of that previously existing bond.
Mutual consent as a ground of divorce is not always forthcoming and in many a case, there is much of
dilly-dallying by one or the other party. Sometimes anxious couples needing separation cannot avail of the
remedy of divorce by mutual consent, merely because one of the parties tries to bargain in the matter or
put conditions which may even be against public policy. However, the ground of irretrievable breakdown
of marriage, as yet, has not been inserted in the divorce law, despite a debate on this aspect by the Law
Commission in two reports.
The Law Commission, in its reports in 1978 and 2009, recommended the Centre to take "immediate
action" to amend the laws with regard to "irretrievable breakdown" where a "wedlock became a deadlock".
As the Centre failed to act on the suggestions, the apex court has from time to time invoked Article 142 to
grant divorce even though existing laws do not recognise the ground for divorce.
In Munish Kakkar v Nidhi Kakkar, the appellant and the respondent got married in accordance with
Hindu rites in the year 2000. The parties co-lived for a period of two months, after which the respondent-
(37)
wife went to Canada, where she eventually obtained citizenship in 2002. The appellant alleged that the
respondent went to Canada without his consent. The respondent returned to Indian only after she got her
Canadian citizenship in 2002. The parties had continuous disputes for the last 15 years and were not able
to live together.
The Supreme Court noticed while granting the divorce – ―… the relationship appears to have deteriorated
to such an extent that both parties see little good in each other; though the respondent insists that she
wants to stay with the appellant. In our view, this insistence is only to somehow not let a decree of divorce
be passed against the respondent. This is only to frustrate the endeavour of the appellant to get a decree of
divorce, completely losing sight of the fact that matrimonial relationships require adjustments from both
sides, and a willingness to stay together. …We have noticed above that all endeavours have been made to
persuade the parties to live together, which have not succeeded. For that, it would not be appropriate to
blame one or the other party, but the fact is that nothing remains in this marriage. The counselor‘s report
also opines so. The marriage is a dead letter. However, no party should be allowed to take advantage of its
own wrong.‖
As the statue does not provided for the provision for the divorce for irretrievable breakdown of marriage,
the Court decided to us special powers provided to the Supreme Court as per Article 142 of constitution of
India provide a unique power to the Supreme Court, to do ―complete justice‖ between the parties.
1. Rahul and Smriti were married as per Hindu rites in 2003. After marriage, Rahul used to mentally
harass Smriti and refused to live with the her. He used to continuously call out on her in front of his
relatives. After bearing his tortures she sought to get divorce on mutual consent. However, Rahul
refused to give the divorce. Decide whether Family Court, Jaipur can grant the decree of the divorce:
a) Yes, as the relationship appears to have deteriorated to such an extent that both parties cannot
live with each other.
b) No, as the relationship does not have deteriorated to such an extent that both parties cannot live
with each other.
c) Yes.
d) No.
2. Brittany and Peter were married as per the Muslim rites. After living for 20 years with Brittany, Peter
claimed that he could not live with Brittany anymore and sorted divorce. Brittany refused to give him
divorce just to delay the process of divorce. Decide whether the Supreme Court can order decree of
Divorce:
with each other.
c) Yes.
3. Sahil and Sunanda were married in 2015. Sunanda applied for divorce petition on the ground that
Sahil used to beat him and approached Supreme Court on the basis that their marriage is
irretrievably broken down. Decide:
with each other.
c) Yes.
d) No.
4. In a case where the counsel has to get decree from Supreme Court for the divorce on the ground of
irretrievable breakdown of marriage for the husband, which facts will not strengthen their case?
a) The husband wants to marry someone else and move out of the infructuous wedlock.
b) The husband has been mentally harassed by the wife.
c) The husband has not been living with the wife since last 20 years.
d) All of the above
(38)
5. Anil married Bharti in 2017. After marriage, Anil told Bharti that he is not interested in living with
her. He used to beat her and started living with some other women. After one year of marriage, he
approached Supreme Court and asked to get a decree for divorce claiming that the marriage is
irretrievably broken down.
with each other.
c) Yes.
d) No.
Passage 28
Territorial Jurisdiction is very important for a trial. An inappropriate choice of territorial jurisdiction can
cause administrative inconvenience such as problems in the collection of evidence. Jurisdiction becomes
also important from the perspective of the various stakeholders for criminal justice administration.
Witnesses, victim and accused can face problems in travelling across jurisdictions.
Generally, in common law countries, an offender is tried in local limits in which the offence has been
committed. The same has been used in section 177 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Section
406 of Criminal procedure Supreme Court is exception to the general principles. As per the section, the SC
can transfer case from one court to another court if it feels it is ―expedient for the ends of the justice‖. The
main requirement of the section is that court should have reasonable apprehension as non-transfer of trial
would lead to injustice. The broad categories for which Supreme Court have granted transfer of the case
under section 406 were given by Supreme Court in Nahar Singh case are:
1. When court feels that the state machinery or the prosecution is acting with accused and the same
would result into miscarriage of justice due to lack of care by the prosecution.
2. The material of the case shows that the accused may influence the witnesses and may cause physical
harm to complainant.
3. Inconvenience and hardships could be caused to the complainant/the prosecution, accused, and the
witnesses. The economic burden which would be borne by State Exchequer in reimbursing travelling
and other expenses of the official and non-official witnesses.
4. The atmosphere of the place is communally surcharged which indicates that the state and
prosecution would not be able to holding fair and impartial trial for the reason of the accusations
made and also such nature of crime to the accused.
5. There is an existence of some kind of material which leads to inference that the witnesses and other
persons are so hostile that they could interfere with the course of justice.
However, the Court‘s approach has been inconsistent in cases, In K. Anbazhagan v. The Superindent of
Police, the court said that fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21. The respondent in the case was Chief
Minister of Tamil Nadu. It was concluded that the witnesses were recalled by counsel for respondent for
the reason that he was busy in another case and he took no steps by prosecutor against 64 witnesses who
resiled from their statement. Court noticed that the judicial process is subverted by the government which
was evident from the fact that the government after coming into power changed the prosecutors. The court
transferred the case to Bangalore. However, in Captain Amrinder Case, the Supreme Court did not granted
the relief in similar facts. The Supreme Court should adopt a uniform approach while deciding the cases.
1. Amit is convicted of an offence for assassinating two sitting judges of High Court of Patna. Amit
thinks that he would not be granted adequate justice in High Court of Patna as both the deceased
judges were known to the current sitting judges in the High Court. Decide whether the Supreme
Court will order the transfer to other court.
a) The transfer will not be ordered as facts do not warrant to order the transfer of the case.
b) The transfer of case will be ordered as the judges might have bias for the accused.
c) The transfer of cases will not be ordered as the judges are allowed to judge irrespective of any
conflict.
d) The transfer of the case will not be ordered as the witnesses might turn hostile.
(39)
2. Ram Sikka, Chief Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh, was accused for the charges of corruption
under the Prevention of Corruption Act. During the trial proceedings, 70 witnesses turned hostile
and some of the witnesses were grievously hurt by a faction of people. As a counsel for CBI, which of
the following statement would strengthen your case to transfer the case to another jurisdiction.
a) The witnesses that were grievously hurt were offered police protection but denied.
b) The Chief Minister, who controls the police, has not resigned from the post of Chief Minister
c) The administrative costs for transferring the case to nearest High Court will cost 10 crores to
exchequer
d) The government in Union Legislature is from same party as the Chief Minister.
3. The accused in a double murder was very influential person. He threatened witness and family of
victims and the petitioner several time complained to police. In addition to that, many witnesses
turned hostile, and witnesses did not respond to summons due to fear of accused. One of the victims
approached Supreme Court to transfer the case. As counsel of victim, which statements will weaken
your case:
a) The accused is son-in-law of Deputy Chief Minister of the State.
b) The state has set up a special court for deciding similar cases expeditiously.
c) The witnesses that turned hostile were denied policy protection when asked.
d) The prosecutor has been given strong powers to order the police with regard to the investigation.
The same is being done by him vehemently.
4. The accused was former Home Minister of State and was out on bail from two years. CBI appealed
for annulment of bail and to transfer the case on the grounds that firstly, non-cooperative state
police; secondly, a witness of Sohrabuddin abduction, Kanhaiya, was also killed in another fake
encounter by Gujarat Police and, on the other hand, state authorities tried to conceal the relation of
the full fact of two encounters. Decide whether the Supreme Court will order the transfer to other
court.
a) The transfer will not be ordered as facts do not warrant to order the transfer of the case.
b) The transfer of case will be ordered as the state machinery that the prosecution is acting with
accused.
c) The transfer of cases will not be ordered.
d) The transfer of the case will not be ordered as the witnesses might turn hostile.
5. The accused was facing charges regarding Coimbatore serial bomb blasts case. The accused pleaded
to transfer the case as there was alleged that he is a member of Pakistan intelligence, was responsible
for bomb blast, and that there was communal disturbance in the area, and also that no lawyer is
ready to defend the accused. The respondents on the other hand stated that lawyers have already
appeared for accused at various courts. Which one of the following factors will favor the case of
accused?
a) The communal disturbance is not defused in state.
b) Most of the witnesses are from Tamil Nadu.
c) The State of Tamil Nadu has ensured free, fair and impartial trial.
d) Prison in Coimbatore have less prisoners than authorized accommodation while Chennai are
overcrowded and court observed.
Passage 29
Section 300 of the IPC provides that a culpable homicide is murder if all the ingredients laid down in the
sections are fulfilled. However, to prove any offence was committed, mens rea and actus reus have to be
proved. The Penal Code recognises certain exceptions wherein a person will not be liable for the offences
committed. Exception four to Section 300 of the IPC provides that a culpable homicide is not murder if it
was committed in sudden fight without any premeditation. To invoke this exception four requirements
must be satisfied, namely:
1. There was a sudden fight;
2. There was no premeditation;
3. The act was done in a heat of passion; and
4. Assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner.
(40)
The reasoning for defense was given in Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana where the Court observed that
―the exception is based upon the principle that in the absence of pre-meditation and on account of total
deprivation of self-control but on account of heat of passion, the offence was committed which, normally a
man of sober urges would not resort to.‖ In such situation neither party listens to their mind which makes
hard to make any person liable. The crucial thing to determine is that the person committing the crime
does not get sufficient time for passion to subside.
The courts have held that cause of the fight is irrelevant, nor it is relevant who offered the provocation, as
long as physical blows were exchanged. In order to claim the benefit of the defence, the accused must not
have time for reflecting on his actions. Further, the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. If a person
during a sudden quarrel, in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy, and causes injuries,
one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this exception, provided he has not acted
cruelly. However, a person will not be able to take advantage of the provision if the there is a reason to
believe that the accused had some other motive as well.
1. Aditya and Tushar are neighbors in a village name Shikarpur. On 14th September 2016, Tushar
noticed that due to leakage in adjacent wall in Aditya‘s home, Tushar‘s expensive painting on the
other side of wall was damaged. Tushar took his painting off the wall and went to Aditya‘s place to
ask him to pay for the painting. In Aditya‘s kitchen, there was exchange of hot words which lead to
fight between both parties. Aditya took the knife and stabbed Tushar in his intestines two times. Due
to excessive blood loss, Tushar died due to excessive blood loss. Decide whether Aditya can be
granted exemption.
a) No, because Aditya used knife in a fight whereas Tushar was unarmed.
b) No, because Aditya stabbed Tushar whereas Tushar did not inflicted any blows.
c) No, because Aditya‘s actions were premediated and he acted with motive.
d) Yes, because all the ingredients are proved.
2. Arudhra and Rakesh were standing for position of President for Nalanda University. During the
public debate, Rakesh called out Arudhra for dereliction of duties and abuse of power. Arudhra
suddenly stood up and abused Rakesh. Following this, both of them hurled abuses with each other
and suddenly Arudhra took a pen knife from his pocket which he always had with him, and stabbed
Rakesh in his intestines two times. Decide whether Arudhra can be granted benefit of the exception.
a) No, because Arudhra used knife in a fight whereas Rakesh was unarmed.
b) No, because Arudhra stabbed Rakesh whereas Tushar did not inflicted any blows.
c) No, because Arudhra‘s actions were premediated and he acted with motive.
3. Sartaj and Anjali were married for last two years. Sartaj used to work on a field and Anjali used to
work at home. Sartaj came home and as Sartaj entered the house, he got into a quarrel with his wife
and, in that fight, he threw a water pot. As the fight turned physical, Sartaj angrily left the house.
Meanwhile, Anjali came in balcony of the room, and started abusing him. Sartaj came back inside the
house and threw a kerosene lamp, and since Anjali was wearing a Nylon Sari, she caught fire and
sustained 70% burn injuries and died. Decide whether Sartaj can be granted benefit of the exception.
a) No, because Sartaj had time to reflect.
b) No, because Anjali was unarmed.
c) No, because Sartaj‘s actions were premediated and he acted with motive.
4. Virupaksh was a 6-feet 5-inch-tall student in the National Law School, Bagalpur and used to always
bully students from junior year. Hari, one of the Junior students, was walking in the gym with his 5
KG dumbbell. Virupaksh hurled abuses at Hari and called him names. Hari politely asked Virupaksh
to stop, but that only made the abuses and insults worse. Hari then pushed Virupaksh, but
Virupaksh said that his 3-year-old brother can push better than him. Feeling humiliated, Hari threw
his dumbbell at him with force. Virupaksh died of brain hemorrhage. Decide whether Hari can be
granted benefit of the exemption:
a) No, because there was no fight between Hari and Virupaksh.
b) No, because Hari‘s acted in cruel manner.
c) No, because Hari‘s actions were premediated and he acted with motive.
(41)
5. Ayush and Ayushi had their field adjacent to each other. Both of them used to verbally fight as both
of them had different opinion on every single topic in the world. One day, both of them had fight on
Citizenship Act, and both of them fought each other for fifteen minutes. After this, they decided to
meet in evening to decide who was best and settle the dispute once for all. Ayush came with lathis
along with her friends Anmol and Ritwik. Similarly, Ayushi also came with his friends Neha and
Nidhi. As both of the factions were fighting, Ayushi landed a lathi blow on Anmol‘s head. Anmol died
due to excessive blood loss. Decide whether Ayushi will be liable for Murder.
a) Yes, because Ayushi acted unusually.
b) Yes, because Ayushi acted in cruel manner.
c) Yes, because Ayushi‘s actions were premediated.
d) No, because all the ingredients are proved.
6. Golu approached Cheenu to ask for money. However, Cheenu refused to give the money. Golu then
abused Cheenu after which both of them started physically fighting. During the fight, Cheenu
stumbled and fell flat on the ground, and Golu took the cleaver from Cheenu‘s shop and landed 25
blows on Cheenu‘s back and head. Decide whether Golu will be liable for Murder.
a) Yes, because Golu acted unusually.
b) Yes, because Golu acted in cruel manner.
c) Yes, because Golu actions were premediated and he acted with motive.
d) No, because all the ingredients are proved.
Passage 30
Article 142(1) provides that the Supreme Court is empowered to pass any order as may be necessary for
doing ‗complete justice‘ in the matter before it. Article 142 of the Constitution deals with the power of
Supreme Court to pass any decree or order or decree it deems fit to do complete justice. While deciding
case under Article 142, the court does not function as a conventional court intending to decide matters
between parties following the rigors of procedure, though is not marked by complete absence of it. Rather,
the Supreme Court‘s functioning may be termed as more of a supervisory jurisdiction ensuring that any
decision of a court or tribunal has not led to injustice to any of the parties. Article 142 is part of basic
structure doctrine, and may be used to ensure both procedural and substantive justice.
The order was also upheld by the larger bench. Supreme Court has made it clear in a number of earlier
decisions, that the power under Article 142 should be invoked only in extreme cases where a party suffers
palpable injustice, or to address a manifest illegality. However, in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu the
Supreme Court – with aim of doing ‗complete justice‘ ordered, among other things, a total ban on the sale
of liquor within 500 meters of national and state highways throughout the country. Disregarding this
crucial point, in invoking this provision as liberally as it has, the court has built a new edifice in territory –
losing sight of the fact that it is in this sense, only a residuary power, required to be exercised very
sparingly. In the process, far reaching policy consequences and implications of such a decision have also
not been taken into account, with perceived public interest literally overriding everything.
Contentions that such an order was tantamount to excessive judicial activism through policymaking were
struck down in light of the Centre‘s consistent advisories to states to stop granting alcohol licenses along
national highways. As a result, the apex court justified its action as merely implementing what the Centre
had wanted to do, but could not. Interestingly, however, the Centre was still silent on whether it wanted
the court‘s help at all. The court also rejected serious reservations about the excise revenues of states and
potential large-scale unemployment – these being concerns that were considered secondary to public
health and safety.
The power of Supreme Court under Article 142(1) of the constitution of India is to ‗supplement the law,
however, various Supreme Court decisions actually ‗supplant the law‘. In many cases, court has observed
that no statutory provision can override the power of Supreme Court of India. The criticism rises from the
fact when Supreme Court supplants the law, it comes into the shoes of the legislature which affects the
principle of separation of power and risk of implementing retrospective law.
[Source: With Highway Liquor Ban, Supreme Court Has Over-Reached Itself, the wire
https://thewire.in/government/liquor-ban-supreme-court-highway]
(42)
1. Mahim approached Supreme Court to transfer the accused to Delhi Jail as accused, Ashutosh, was a
very dangerous person and his presence affected all the witnesses and the wife of the deceased which
could affect the trial. Section 3 of the Prisoners Act only grants power to executive to transfer one
prisoner from one state to other state. Therefore, it was argued that the Supreme Court cannot
transfer the prisoner to Delhi. Decide:
a) The Supreme Court cannot transfer the prisoner in absence of statutory provision.
b) The Supreme Court cannot transfer the prisoner as it would impact his rights under Prisoner‘s
Act.
c) The Supreme Court can transfer the prisoner as per power enshrined under Article 142.
d) None of the Above.
2. As per the opinions of the author, what should the Supreme Court do in this situation?
a) The Supreme Court should not order the transfer as such approach will encroach on legislature‘s
power and violate doctrine of separation of power.
b) The Supreme Court should not order transfer as such approach will not take everyone‘s interest
into account.
c) The Supreme Court should not order the transfer because such transfer will supplant the law.
d) The Supreme Court should not order the transfer because such transfer will supplement the law.
3. Central Government is planning to repeal Article 142, can it do so?
a) Yes, Legislature can repeal any law including constitutional provision.
b) No, Legislature cannot repeal any constitutional provision.
c) Yes.
d) No.
4. According to Author, which is the notion of justice should be used while deciding cases under Article
142?
a) Procedural justice b) Substantial justice
c) Both a and b d) None of the above
Passage 31
Ravi recently was appointed as an insurance agent with Life Assurance Corporation Limited (LACL). His
duties consisted of approaching people, advertising the policy and helping them fill the forms. He enjoyed
doing his job and also received a modest remuneration.
His duties were enumerated as such-
―1. Approach parties and advertise the relevant insurance policy to members of the public.
2. Aid, assist and direct the correct filling of the form for the relevant insurance policy.
3. Aid in marketing new policies in the market.
4. Accept the premiums on behalf of the insurance company before the policy has lapsed, either
automatically or based on the decision of the insurance company.‖
Around January, 2020 Coronavirus or COVID-19 became a pandemic globally, and a state of panic ensued
among the public. LACL cleverly gauged that the insurance market required a comprehensive health
policy, and churned out a Corona Coverage Plus policy. This policy not only insured the policy holder
against the costs for treatment of COVID-19, but also against the costs of quarantine. In essence, it not
only covered cases where the policy holder was diagnosed with COVID-19, but also when he was merely
suspected to be affected by it. However, as it was a new policy, LACL announced that they would only
provide the policy to two hundred ‗most insurable‘ people. Every interested person was required to fill an
online form, after which eligible candidates would be called for an interview and a health check-up. After
they were selected, they would be required to fill the policy form and pay a weekly premium for 12 months.
A premium is a payment made by the policy holder to the insurance company as a consideration for the
policy.
LACL‘s new policy was a hit in the market, with tens of thousands of people filling up the form. Ravi was
caught in the middle of this action, and his workload increased significantly. He was now required to help
the eligible candidates fill the policy form, and submit the same to LACL.
(43)
In this process, Ravi met Mr. Sharma, in a bid to assist him to fill the policy form. Instead of filling it
himself, Mr. Sharma signed in all the relevant places and asked Ravi to fill in the rest, which he did.
Keep in mind the following principle-
Principle 1: The actions of an agent, in the course of their duty, bind the principle.
Principle 2: Any misrepresentation on behalf of the policy holder makes the insurance contract void at
the option of the insurer.
In Blades v. United Assurance, the Bombay High Court had observed that-
―Ordinarily…an insurance agent is an agent of the company, which is his principal…his actions become
that of the company…but he can only do what he is expressly authorized to do…if he goes beyond his
enumerated duties then it will be unfair to bind the company for his actions. Another interesting
situation arises in the case of an insurance agent when he is helping the insured fill in his/her form and
takes the same to the company, he takes the role of the agent of the insured…not the company. For now
he is behaving for the benefit of the policy holder, the insured…‖
1. After Mr. Sharma‘s form is submitted and he pays the premium, LACL realizes that his form
contained a misrepresentation. They decide to void the policy, but Mr. Sharma objects, stating that
the misrepresentation was a result of Ravi‘s act, who was the agent of LACL. Can LACL avoid the
policy?
a) No, as all acts of Ravi when he was acting in the capacity of an insurance agent are attributable to
LACL.
b) Yes, as when Ravi filled the form he was acting as the agent of Mr. Sharma and not LACL.
c) No, as if this is permitted, all insurance companies who appoint agents to aid in filling forms will
remain without liability.
d) Yes, as Mr. Sharma should have been more careful before signing the documents and should have
corrected Ravi.
2. Mr. Rangrajan was chosen to be eligible for the COVID-19 policy by LACL. Ravi visited him, and
signed on behalf of LACL. Mr. Rangrajan was quarantined after having an irresponsible pool party in
Bali, and subsequently claimed under the policy. LACL sought to avoid the claim. Mr. Rangrajan
argued that Ravi had signed for LACL and thus a valid policy was entered into, while LACL argued
that Ravi‘s action did not bind LACL. Decide-
a) Ravi was the agent of the Insurance Company here and thus his actions bind the principal, i.e.
LACL. There existed a valid policy.
b) Ravi‘s duties do not include signing policies on behalf of LACL. Hence, his actions here do not
bind LACL. Thus, a valid policy was not entered into.
c) Ravi‘s duties implicitly include signing on behalf of LACL as he represented them for all other
purposes. Thus, his actions bind LACL. There existed a valid policy.
d) Mr. Rangrajan had indulged in negligent behavior which was not covered by the policy, and thus
even if a valid policy existed, it did not cover this instance.
3. Ms. Malvika is a fire insurance policy holder with LACL. A term of her policy is that she has to pay
the premium before the 2nd Saturday of every month, or the policy lapses. She paid the premium on
the 3rd Saturday, which was accepted by Ravi. After this, there was a fire in her warehouse and she
made a claim under the LACL policy. LACL stated that the policy had lapsed, while Ms. Malvika said
that Ravi accepted the premium, and this action of his indicated a waiver on behalf of the LACL and
binds it. Decide the outcome of the situation-
a) Ms. Malvika will be able to make a successful claim as she did pay the premium to Ravi, who was
authorized to collect it.
b) Ms. Malvika will not be able to make a successful claim as she paid the premium after the lapse of
the policy and Ravi was not authorized to collect the same.
c) Ms. Malvika will be able to make a successful claim as Ravi did collect the premium and that
amounted to a waiver on behalf of LACL.
d) Ms. Malvika will not be able to make a successful claim as she should have cross-checked with
LACL keeping in mind the lapse clause..
(44)
4. Assume that Ms. Malvika had paid the premium of time, but the same was misplaced by Ravi, would
she still be able to claim under the fire insurance policy?
a) Yes, as here Ravi lost the premium that was duly given to him in the course of his duty.
b) No, as Ravi misplaced it so it never reached LACL.
c) Yes, as here Ravi collected the premium according to his duties and this action of his bound
LACL. The fact that he misplaced the premium does not affect Ms. Malvika‘s claim as she has paid
the premium accordingly.
5. Principle: The premium has to be paid exactly in the form as prescribed in the policy.
The COVID-19 policy required the policy holders to pay the premium via online funds transfer. Ms.
Malvika paid her premiums through money orders. Can she claim that she has paid the premiums to
LACL?
a) Yes, as long as it reached LACL.
b) No, as money transfer is unreliable as compared to online transfers.
c) Yes, as she did send the premium.
d) No, as the premium was not paid in prescribed form.
Passage 32
Mr. Rigsby was a very valued engineer for Flying Automobiles Co. and was deeply involved in creation of
their new prototype for a flying car. This was for an auto expo later in the year, where companies would
exhibit their finest automobile models in order to entice investors.
Rigsby had worked tirelessly to create an excellent model, but he was not given any credit or promotion or
reward for the same. Dejected, he began to contemplate quitting the company.
Nikola Motors was a key rival to Flying Automobiles, and was also going to participate in the same auto
expo. They had been on the look-out to hire spectacular engineers such as Mr. Rigsby, but had failed to
find anyone of similar caliber.
One day Rigsby took his friends, Scully and Hitchcock to Poor Richard‘s, a very happening bar and
proceeded to order shots for everyone. He got extremely intoxicated and narrated his tale of woe.
―They do not understand my potential…they have no idea how high I can fly.‖ He then passed out and was
taken home by his friends. Scully was actually an employee of Nikola Motors and communicated Rigsby‘s
dissatisfaction with Flying Automobiles to Nikola Motors. The head of hiring, Holt, immediately started
the process of designing an offer that Rigsby couldn‘t refuse.
Holt then requested Scully to slip the information of this offer to Rigsby. Rigsby was first hesitant, but
Holt‘s offer enticed him. He requested a meeting with Holt, stating that there was an obstacle that needed
to be discussed. Holt was delighted and arranged for the same at Poor Richard‘s.
The obstacle was a clause in Rigsby‘s employment contract which read-
―The undersigned shall work exclusively for Flying Automobiles Co. for a period of 25 years, and in this
period is not permitted to work with any rival company even if he/she quits the company.‖
Holt read the clause and pulled out the Indian Contracts Act, the relevant section of which reads-
―Section 27. Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade
or business of any kind, is to that extent void.‖
Though assured by Holt, Rigsby still suggested speaking to the legal expert- Amy. Amy restated the
section, but also warned that there were situations where restrictions could be permitted. Such an
agreement or clause, if reasonable and in interest of the public, could be permitted.
Amy informed them the important judgment of Golikari v. Century spinning & Manufacturing Co Ltd. In
this case, the individual was employed for a period of 5 years, the condition being that during this period
he shall not serve anywhere else even if he left the service earlier. The Court held this to be reasonable,
stating that-
―The injunction issued against him is restricted as to time, the nature of employment and as to are and
cannot therefore be said to be too wide or unreasonable or unnecessary for the protection of the interest of
the respondent company…a period that exceeds this substantially, however, could be hit by Section 27…‖
(45)
Rigsby quit Flying Automobiles the next day, and joined Nikola Motors soon after. Flying automobiles
sued him for breaching his contract. Rigsby argued that the clause in question was void, and hence no
question of a breach arises.
1. What will be the likely outcome of this case?
a) There was a breach of contract as the period of the restrictive covenant was for a reasonable
period given Rigsby‘s position and he had notice of the same.
b) There no breach of contract as the clause was void because of the unreasonableness of the
restrictive covenant.
c) There was a breach as the covenant was restricted in terms of time and bar on similar
employment which is what is required in the Golikari case.
d) There was no breach as these covenants, in themselves, are not permissible due to Section 27 of
the Contract Act.
2. Imagine that instead of 25 years, the restraining clause said 8 years, what would be the outcome of
the case?
a) The Court would hold that covenant would now be for a reasonable period of time.
b) The Court would rule that such covenants in themselves are illegal wowing to Section 27 of the
Contract Act.
c) The Court would rule that the covenant was unreasonable because it is too broad.
d) The Court would rule the covenant was reasonable, as such covenants are only unreasonable if
they are for very long periods of time.
3. Ryan was also a key employee of Flying Automobiles who wanted to quit, but he also had a similar
clause in his agreement. His clause stated-
―The undersigned is barred from joining any competing company for the next 3 years.‖
Principle: Post termination restraint, under Indian Law, is in violation of Section 27 of the Contract
Act. Such contracts are unenforceable, void and against the public policy.
Is such a covenant valid?
a) Yes, as a key employee, Flying Automobiles could anticipate that Ryan would provide confidential
information to rival companies. This clause is valid.
b) No, as any post-termination restraint is invalid.
c) Yes, as any unreasonable post termination clause is void, but three years is a reasonable period.
d) No, as any unreasonable post termination clause is void, and three years is an unreasonable period.
4. Would the case be different if instead of 3 years, the contract said 12 months?
a) No, as both three years and 12 months are reasonable time periods.
b) Yes, as 12 months is a more reasonable time period.
c) No, as any post-termination restraint is invalid.
d) Yes, as any post-termination restraint is valid.
5. Facing increasing competition from Nikola Motors, Flying Automobiles went on an acquisition
spree. As a part of this exercise, they acquired the business and goodwill of Albert Motors‘ Indian
branch and entered an agreement which barred Albert Motors from having a competing business
anywhere. Albert Motors opened a branch in Japan, and Flying Automobiles sued them for the same.
Principle: Exception to Section 27 states—"One who sells the goodwill of a business may agree
with the buyer to refrain from carrying on a similar business, within specified local limits, so long
as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business
therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of
the business.‖
What will be the likely outcome of this case?
a) Flying Automobiles will succeed as sale of goodwill is clearly an exception to Section 27.
b) Flying Automobiles will lose as the limits set by them are unreasonable.
c) Flying Automobiles will succeed as they have only reasonably stopped Albert Motors from
conducting a rival business. They still are free to start any other business.
d) Albert Motors will lose as they clearly sold their business and goodwill, and hence cannot claim
any protection of the law.
(46)
Passage 33
Rohan was a mischievous 16 year old boy. Since his parents had passed away, he lived with his uncle.
Though Rohan was fairly young, his build made him look much older. On several occasions Rohan would
take advantage of the same.
One day, while watching television he saw an advertisement for a new television. He was very interested in
purchasing the same, but his uncle refused to buy it. He categorized that as ‗unnecessary expenditure‘. In
order to purchase that television, Rohan devised a plan. He collected all the electronics in his house and
created an inventory, after which he began to hunt for buyers of second-hand electronics.
One such buyer was a small company called YouTryWeBuy (YTWB), with Mr. Shree being the person who
authorized purchases. Rohan decided that he shall deal with Mr. Shree and approached him the next day.
Rohan had hatched a scheme wherein he would sell some of the electronics and take an advance on the
rest, which he would use to buy the television. He had no intention in supplying the actual number of
electronics to YTWB.
Rohan approached Mr. Shree, posing as a 22 year old college student wanting to get rid of his electronics
before shifting out of his hostel. Mr. Shree bought into the charade and ended up giving a substantial
advance to Rohan. Subsequently, according to plan, Rohan purchased the television and began dodging all
calls/notices sent in by YTWB.
Finally, YTWB sued Rohan for the supply of the remaining electronics. Rohan pleaded that he was a
minor, and hence the agreement between him and YTWB was void. YTWB argued that Rohan had
misrepresented his age and was thus liable.
Keep in mind the following-
Principle 1: Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 states that- ―Every person is competent to
contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, and who is of sound
mind and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject.‖
Principle 2: There can be no ratification of a void agreement.
Principle 3: If a minor obtains property or goods by misrepresenting his age, he can be compelled to
restore it as long as the same is traceable in his possession. If that is not the case, or if he has obtained
cash/converted the goods for the same, the minor cannot be so compelled. This is a duty arising from
equitable principles.
Principle 4: If the minor seeks the help of the Court for cancellation of the contract, the Court has the
power to require the minor to restore all benefits received by him/her under such an agreement.
1. Did a valid contract exist between Rohan and YTWB?
a) No, since Rohan was a minor and thus did not have the capacity to enter into a legally binding
contract.
b) Yes, as Rohan misrepresented his age and thus is now estopped from asserting that the contract is
binding.
c) No, since the requirements of the doctrine of estoppel are not fulfilled here.
d) Yes, as Rohan repeatedly misrepresented his age and was duping people and this time he ought to
be held accountable for it.
2. Can YTWB require Rohan to supply the promised goods to YTWB using equitable principles?
a) Yes, as that will be the equitable remedy that YTWB is entitled to.
b) No, as that would be like enforcing a void contract.
c) Yes, as there existed a valid contract and YTWB had performed their obligations.
d) No, as the contract was not for Rohan‘s benefit.
(47)
3. Rohan, even after being taken to Court, does not cease his dealings with naïve shopkeepers. One
such shopkeeper, Surya, allows Rohan to purchase an expensive watch, and enters an agreement
which requires Rohan to pay for the watch on the first Saturday of the next month. Rohan loves the
watch and thus he keeps it, but does not make the payment. Surya sues him. Does Surya have a
remedy against Rohan?
a) He has no remedy as there exists no legally binding contract between Surya and Rohan since
Roan is a minor.
b) He has a remedy in equitable principles and can ask Rohan to return the watch which is in his
possession.
c) He has a remedy in equitable principles and can ask Rohan to tender the remaining advances to
Surya.
d) He has no remedy against Rohan as the equitable remedy only exists when there is a legally
binding obligation in place.
4. One fine Sunday Rohan decided to earn some money by selling off his uncle‘s scooter. He advertises
the same, posing as a major, and an interested customer arrives. On taking a test drive, the customer
likes the scooter. Rohan states that the scooter can only be sold to someone willing to pay in two
instalments- one to be paid in advance, and one after delivery. The customer agrees. Rohan takes Rs.
2 lakhs as advance, with the remaining 1 lakh to be paid after delivery. After obtaining the money,
Rohan approaches the Court to cancel this contract and pleads minority. What is the likely outcome
of this case?
a) As Rohan was a minor when the contract was entered into, it will be cancelled and he will be
permitted to retain the scooter and the advance.
b) As Rohan was a minor when the contract was entered into, it will be cancelled and he will be
permitted to retain the scooter but will be required to return the advance.
c) Though Rohan was a minor when the contract was entered into, the contract entered here was
valid and thus Rohan cannot get the same cancelled.
d) As Rohan was a minor when the contract was entered into, the Court will rule in equity to let
Rohan keep the advance.
5. Rohan enters into an agreement with Sunderlal for the supply of new footballs on a quarterly basis,
for which the payment would be made at the end of the year. Subsequently, Rohan turns 18 years old
and Sunderlal asks Rohan to ratify the agreement, which he agrees to do. However, Rohan refuses to
pay even after such ratification. Can Sunderlal sue for breach of the ratified agreement?
a) There existed no valid agreement between Rohan and Sunderlal when Rohan was a minor, but
now since he has become a major, the agreement has become valid. Sunderlal can sue him for
breach.
b) The agreement between Rohan and Sunderlal was for Rohan‘s benefit and was thus valid, and can
be enforced. Sunderlal can thus sue Rohan for its breach.
c) Rohan‘s agreement with Sunderlal was entered into when Rohan was a minor and was thus void,
and such an agreement cannot be ratified. Sunderlal cannot sue for breach.
d) Sunderlal can ask for all the footballs back.
Passage 34
Rahul and Anjali studied together in St. Jones‘ University and were best friends. Apart from studying
together, they also played sport together and spent a considerable amount of time with each other. Anjali
was romantically interested in Rahul, but he seemed to only consider her to be his best friend.
Soon after, a student called Tina entered the college. Her friendship with Rahul blossomed, and soon they
fell in love. Rahul conveyed the same to Anjali and she was heartbroken. She watched as Rahul entered
into a relationship with Tina, and gradually distanced himself from her.
Hurt by his behavior, she confronted him and expressed her feelings. Rahul dismissed her concerns and
failed to address her feelings adequately. Deeply hurt, Anjali decided to take a transfer to a better
university in another city and left. Rahul asked her to stop, but she had made her decision. Rahul and
Anjali lost touch soon.
(48)
Rahul subsequently got married to Tina. During their marriage ceremony, they decided not to follow the
ritual of Saptapadi and instead follow a custom which was followed by the community both of them
belonged to. Soon after their marriage, they had a little girl, who he named Tanaya. Once Tanaya turned
12, Tina decided to go on a cruise for some professional commitments. The cruise got stuck in a storm, and
no contact could be established between Tina and Rahul. Five years passed and there was still no news of Tina.
In the meantime, Tanaya read Rahul‘s diary and found out the truth about Anjali. In a bid to find her, she
enrolled in a summer camp. When Rahul visited his daughter, he met Anjali again and both of them fell in
love this time and decided to get married.
After 6 months of their marriage, Tina returned. She accused Rahul of bigamy, which is not permitted.
Rahul defended himself by stating that Tina was gone for six years and 9 months, and thus he presumed
she was dead. Keep in mind the following principles-
Principle 1: Bigamy is an offence under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Indian Penal Code.
Bigamy is when a person marries someone while his/her spouse is still alive.
Principle 2: If an already married individual remarries in the lifetime of his/her spouse, the second
marriage is void.
Principle 3: A person can be legally presumed to be dead if he/she has not been seen or heard of in the 7
years preceding the date of assessment.
Principle 4: Divorce is the dissolution of a valid marriage.
Principle 5: Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act states- ―Ceremonies for a Hindu marriage.-(1) A Hindu
marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party
thereto.
(2) Where such rites and ceremonies include the saptapadi (that is, the taking of seven steps by the
bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding
when the seventh step is taken.‖
1. Has Rahul committed bigamy?
a) Yes, as he married Anjali when Tina was still alive.
b) No, as Rahul in good faith believed that Tina had died.
c) Yes, as he married Anjali when Tina had been gone for less that 7 years.
d) No, as Tina vanished out of nowhere and thus Rahul had the right to seek out a partner after 6
long years.
2. Anjali decides to seek a divorce from Rahul. Is the same possible?
a) Yes, as Rahul already has a living wife and so Anjali can divorce him.
b) Yes. Anjali and Rahul in good faith believed that Tina was dead and so their marriage was valid,
which allows Anjali to file for a divorce.
c) No, as Rahul genuinely believed Tina to be dead and thus did not intentionally commit bigamy.
d) No, as her marriage with Rahul is void in the first place.
3. Anjali argues that Tina and Rahul‘s marriage is not valid in the first place as the ceremony was not
conducted in accordance with the Hindu Marriage Act. Is her contention valid?
a) Yes, as saptapadi is an essential ceremony for the marriage to be binding.
b) No, as the Act allows for the solemnization of Hindu marriages based on the customs and
ceremonies of either party, and Tina and Rahul followed that.
c) Yes, as saptapadi has been explicitly mentioned in the Act.
d) No, as Rahul and Tina did live as husband and wife in the eyes of the society after the ceremony.
4. Assume that instead of having been gone for 6 years and 9 months, Tina had been gone for 8 years
(between 2011-2019). However, in this duration she wrote five letters to Rahul‘s parents and Rahul,
and all of them were dated two years prior to Rahul‘s marriage (which took place in 2019). What will
be the consequence of this?
a) Since Tina had been gone for 7 years, she would be legally presumed to be dead.
b) Since Tina wrote letters to Rahul dated two years prior to Rahul‘s marriage, it can be said that
Rahul had heard from her and thus the legal presumption would not apply.
c) It would depend on the content of the letters.
d) Five letters in a period of 8 years is not sufficient to displace the legal presumption.
(49)
5. Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code States that-
―Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.—Whoever, having a husband or wife living,
marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of
such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.‖
Can Anjali and Rahul be held liable for the offence of Bigamy?
a) Yes, both Anjali and Rahul are liable.
b) Only Rahul will be held liable.
c) Only Anjali will be held liable.
d) No one will be held liable.
Passage 35
The Lok Sabha passed the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2019 by a voice vote. The Bill, introduced by Union
Health Minister Harsh Vardhan, seeks to ban commercial surrogacy and provides for constituting a
National Surrogacy Board, State Surrogacy Boards, and the appointment of appropriate authorities for the
regulation of the practice and process of surrogacy.
The Bill mandates payment to the surrogate mother, who can only be a ‗close relative‘, to the extent of
covering medical expenses and providing insurance during the term of the pregnancy. It has specified that
advertising for surrogacy and selling/importing human embryos or gametes for surrogacy also attract
punishment.
Union Minister for Women and Child Development Smriti Irani added that only Indian couples can opt for
surrogacy in the country, which has been included in the text of the Bill.
[Excerpt from Lok Sabha passes Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, The Hindu, August 05, 2019]
In its earlier form, the Surrogacy Bill was cleared by the Lok Sabha on December 19, 2018. It was passed
after a short debate of just two hours among only nine members of Parliament. It could not be introduced
in the Rajya Sabha, however. At that time, the Health Minister, J.P. Nadda, said various political parties
supported the Bill which was drafted ―keeping the Indian ethos in mind‖. He said the ―intention is to save
the family‖ and if the family is not able to bear children, to help them bear children through facilities
offered by modern science. A family, according to the Minister, consists of ―a registered husband and
wife.‖
[Excerpt from Respecting reproductive choice, The Hindu, July 28, 2019]
In essence, the Bill prohibits commercial surrogacy and only permits altruistic surrogacy.
Commercial surrogacy is defined as- commercialization of surrogacy services or procedures or its
component services or component procedures including selling or buying of human embryo or trading in
the sale or purchase of human embryo or gametes or selling or buying or trading the services of surrogate
motherhood by way of giving payment, reward, benefit, fees, remuneration or monetary incentive in cash
or kind, to the surrogate mother or her dependents or her representative, except the medical expenses
incurred on the surrogate mother and the insurance coverage for the surrogate mother.
For a couple to be eligible to opt for surrogacy they have to obtain a certificate from the appropriate
authority. To obtain this certificate, the following conditions have to be fulfilled cumulatively-
(I) the age of the intending couple is between 23 to 50 years in case of female and between 26 to 55 years
in case of male;
(II) the intending couple are married for at least five years and are Indian citizens;
(III) the intending couple have not had any surviving child biologically or through adoption or through
surrogacy earlier:
Provided that nothing contained in this item shall affect the intending couple who have a child and who is
mentally or physically challenged or suffers from life threatening disorder or fatal illness with no
permanent cure and approved by the appropriate authority with due medical certificate from a District
Medical Board.
(50)
The surrogate should be a willing woman who-
(I) is an ever married woman having a child of her own and between the age of 25 to 35 years on the day of
implantation, shall be a surrogate mother or help in surrogacy by donating her egg or oocyte or otherwise;
(II)is a close relative of the intending couple;
(III) has not acted as a surrogate mother in her lifetime.
1. Pammi and Raj have been married for seven years, and have not had a child. They decide to go to a
clinic to opt for surrogacy services. However, Pammi is an Indian citizen while Raj is an Indian-
origin American citizen. Are they allowed to opt for surrogacy under the new Bill?
a) Yes, as both are Indians at the end of the day.
b) Yes, as though only Pammi is an Indian citizen, Raj is of Indian origin and thus the same suffices.
c) No, as both the spouses have to be Indian citizens.
d) It depends on the place of registration of their marriage.
2. Reshma is a working woman, who had recently divorced her husband because of domestic violence.
The violence had also led to a miscarriage of her child three years ago. At 28 years of age, she decided
that its time to rear a child. However, the doctor diagnosed her to be infertile. She approached a
surrogacy clinic to seek their services. Does the Bill allow her to seek those services?
a) Yes, as long as she goes for altruistic surrogacy.
b) No, as the same is not in line with Indian family ethos.
c) Yes, as she has a legitimate case of being a domestic violence victim who deserves to have her own
family especially after the miscarriage.
d) No, as the Bill only allows married couples to opt for surrogacy.
3. Raji and Raman had adopted a girl child when she was fairly young, but now they desired to have a
male child. They believed that a male child, that too their own, was essential for running the family
and ensuring the persistence of their family name. Will the Bill allow them to seek surrogacy
services?
a) Yes, as a male child, according to them is essential for the preservation of the family.
b) Yes, as the other child they have is adopted and not their own and thus they could still be infertile.
c) No, as it is on very limited grounds that a couple can seek surrogacy services if they already have a
child (their own or adopted) and this doesn‘t fit those grounds.
d) No, as this is a sexist way of thinking and should be nipped in the bud.
4. Koina and Randeep had been married for ten years but were unable to conceive a child due to
fertility issues. Koina confided in her sister-in-law, Reshma, who offered to be a surrogate for her. As
Reshma was a close relative, Koina was delighted. Reshma had been married recently, and offered as
it would allow her to go through the process of childbirth before deciding to have her own child. Will
Reshma be allowed to be a surrogate for Koina?
a) No, as she does not have a child of her own.
b) Yes, as she is a close relative of Koina.
c) Yes, as she is a close relative of Koina and also married.
d) No, as we are not sure whether she is in the acceptable age bracket.
5. Roli and Paul were a married couple who desired to have a child. Their aunt decided to be their
surrogate, and she fulfilled all the relevant conditions. Roli and Paul paid for all medical bills and
also took an insurance for their aunt‘s benefit. The doctor filed a complaint against the couple stating
that these acts essentially amounted to providing monetary incentive to their aunt and was hence
commercial surrogacy. Was the doctor‘s allegation valid?
a) Yes, as the payment of all medical bills and taking an insurance could amount to monetary
incentive.
b) No, as the payment of all medical bills and taking an insurance does not amount to
commercialization of surrogacy under the Bill.
c) No, as their close relative was their surrogate and hence whatever they did could not make the
same ‗commercial surrogacy‘.
(51)
Passage 36
Very briefly, for a few decades, the Court fluctuated between a ‗functional test‘ (i.e., looking to the
functions a body is performing in order to determine whether it could be equated to ‗State‘ under Article
12, and therefore subject to fundamental rights claims), and a ‗legal‘ test (i.e., whether the legal form of the
body can be equated with that of the State). In Pradeep Kumar Biswas, and then in Zee Telefilms, the
Court finally – and decisively – adopted the legal test, holding that a body fell within Article 12 only if it
was ―functionally, financially or administratively‖ under the control of the State. Mere regulatory control
would not suffice.
The test laid down by PK Biswas was thus-
―The question in each case would be whether in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body
is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government.
Such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive.‖
A majority of the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III are enforceable against the State, and hence it is
crucial to determine if a body is State.
In 2020, the Board of Control for Cricket in India decided to organize a national level league where teams
from all the states could participate. From this league, they aimed to choose players for the Indian team.
To ensure a level playing field the BCCI was required to provide some funds to each team, and the
allotments of such funds had to be justified.
Though the BCCI allotted a generous amount of funds to teams from north Indian states, they provided
significantly lesser funds to teams from the North-East and the South. The teams were agitated by this
unequal treatment and decided to take the BCCI to court for violating their right to equality under Article
14- i.e. the right to be treated equally by the State.
Article 12 of the Constitution of India defines State as follows-
―In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, the State includes the Government and Parliament of
India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities
within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.‖
Article 14 of the Constitution of India states as follows-
―The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within
the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of
birth.‖
The BCCI argued that it was a registered society, was not chosen by the State for regulating Indian cricket
or formulated for the same, had administrative autonomy and secured a significant amount of its funds
from external sponsors. The cricket teams argued that the BCCI enjoyed extensive powers in selecting
cricketers to the national team representing India in international tournaments and had a virtual
monopoly in organizing major cricketing events in India. It was thus performing the functions of a State. It
also received widespread State without which the team selected by it would not be able to represent itself
as the Indian cricket team.
1. Keeping in mind the above stated principles, will the Court declare BCCI to be State under Article
12?
a) Yes, as BCCI did perform a public function and monopoly right of selecting the Indian cricket
team.
b) Yes, as BCCI did receive some funds from the government.
c) No, as the BCCI was a registered society and not established by a statute.
d) No, as though BCCI did perform public function, it had sufficient autonomy and was not
pervasively controlled by the State.
2. Will a decision on BCCI being/not being state affect the cricket teams‘ claims of the breach of Article
14?
a) No, as Article 14 can be claimed horizontally against the BCCI.
b) Yes, as Article 14 can only be claimed against the State.
c) No, as though BCCI is not ‗State‘, it does perform a public function and for that purpose it needs
to act in conformity with the right to equality.
d) Yes, as no private bodies are required to act in a non-discriminatory manner.
(52)
3. In Zee Telefilms, the Court recognized that on some occasions, though the body could not be held to
be ‗State‘ under Article 12, it may be held accountable if it performs ‗public functions‘. This case
concerned the regulator of Indian Football, the All India Football Federation. The Court ruled that –
―It cannot be denied that the AIFF does discharge some duties like the selection of an Indian team,
controlling the activities of the players and others involved in the game. These activities can be said
to be akin to public duties or State functions and if there is any violation of any constitutional or
statutory obligation or rights of other citizens, the aggrieved party may not have a relief by way of
a petition under Article 32. But that does not mean that the violator of such right would go scot-free
merely because it or he is not a State. Though the remedy under Article 32 is not available, an
aggrieved party can always seek a remedy under the ordinary course of law or by way of a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which is much wider than Article 32.‖
Can the Cricket teams then make claim against the BCCI under Article 226?
a) No, as the BCCI is not State.
b) Yes, as the BCCI is State.
c) Yes, as the BCCI does perform the public function and has the monopoly right of selecting the
Indian cricket team.
d) No, as the BCCI was not formulated for selection of the Indian team and that is purely a private
function.
4. The Central government passed an Act called the Control of Production of Acid Act, 2018 wherein it
extensively regulated the factories that produced acid. One of such acid production factories, Birla
Industries, decided to terminate twenty of their female employees citing budget cuts. No male
employee was terminated. The women complained that Birla Industries had violated their Article 14
rights, which it was supposed to respect since it was State. Is their contention valid?
a) Yes, as the act regulates acid industries and they can thus be called ‗State‘.
b) Yes, as the Act does not only merely regulate, but extensively regulates several administrative
aspects of Birla industries, they structurally qualify as the ‗State‘.
c) No, as mere regulation does not suffice.
d) No, as these factories are private bodies.
5. The judiciary is not expressly mentioned in Article 12, and the same was expounded upon in the case
of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra. In this case, the Apex Court ruled that no judicial proceeding
could be said to violate any of the Fundamental rights. This judgment removed the judiciary from the
ambit of state insofar as judicial proceedings were concerned.
Ms. Tushita wrote an exam for being the personal assistant of a judge along with 30 applicants, and
the officers of the Court released the results, in which she had scored the maximum marks. However,
Mr. Shourya, the male candidate with lesser marks than her was chosen for the post. Aggrieved, she
filed a petition claiming the violation of her Article 14 rights. Can she claim the same?
a) No, as the judiciary is not state.
b) No, as the judiciary is not explicitly mentioned in Article 12 as State, while the legislature and
Executive are.
c) Yes, as the judiciary is the State.
d) Yes, as judiciary is not State only in cases of judicial proceedings.
Passage 37
The Indian Forest Act, 1927 allows the State Government to declare any forest as a reserved forest. While it
does not define what a reserved forest is, the implication of the Act is that only the state has the exclusive
right of ownership on the forest resources, and also exclusive right to exploit them.
There is a procedure to be followed for declaration of a forest as a reserved forest. The relevant sections
of the Act are-
―4. Notification by State Government.-(1) Whenever it has been decided to constitute any land a reserved
forest, the State Government shall issue a notification in the Official Gazette…and appointing an officer
(hereinafter called ―the Forest Settlement-officer‖) to inquire into and determine the existence, nature
and extent of any rights alleged to exist in favour of any person in or over any land comprised within
such limits or in or over any forest-produce, and to deal with the same as provided in this Chapter.
(53)
5. Bar of accrual of forest-rights.–After the issue of a notification under section 4, no right shall be
acquired in or over the land comprised in such notification, except by succession or contract in writing
made or entered into by or on behalf of the Government or some person in whom such right was vested
when the notification was issued; and no fresh clearings for cultivation or for any other purpose shall be
made in such land.
6. Proclamation by Forest Settlement-officer.–When a notification has been issued under section 4, the
Forest Settlement-officer shall publish in the local vernacular in every town and village in the
neighbourhood of the land comprised therein, a proclamation-
(a) specifying, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of the proposed forest;
(b) explaining the consequences which, as hereinafter provided, will ensue on the reservation of
such forest; and (c) fixing a period of not less than three months from the date of such proclamation, and
requiring every person claiming any right mentioned in section 4 or section, 5 within such period either
to present to the Forest Settlement-officer a written notice specifying or to appear before him and state,
the nature of such right and the amount and particulars of the compensation (if any) claimed in respect
thereof.
7. Inquiry by Forest Settlement-officer.–The Forest Settlement-officer shall take down in writing all
statements made under section 6, and shall at some convenient place inquire into all claims duly
preferred under that section, and the existence of any rights mentioned in section 4 or section 5 and not
claimed under section 6 so far as the same may be ascertainable from the records of Government and the
evidence of any persons likely to be acquainted with the same.
9. Extinction of rights.-Rights in respect of which no claim has been preferred under section 6, and of the
existence of which no knowledge has been acquired by inquiry under section 7, shall be extinguished,
unless before the notification under section 20 is published, the person claiming them satisfies the Forest
Settlement-officer that he had sufficient cause for not prefer-ring such claim within the period fixed
under section 6.
11. Power to acquire land over which right is claimed.–(1) In the case of a claim to a right in or over any
land, other than a right of way or right of pasture, or a right to forest produce or a water-course, the
Forest Settlement-officer shall pass an order admitting or rejecting the same in whole or in part.
(2) If such claim is admitted in whole or in part, the Forest Settlement-officer shall either
(i) exclude such land- from the limits of the proposed forest; or
(ii) come to an agreement with the owner thereof for the surrender of his rights; or
(iii) proceed to acquire such land in the manner provided by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894).‖
It is pertinent to note that the declaration of a forest as a reserved forest has severe repercussions on the
lives of the indigenous communities that live in the forest. These Sections were essentially enacted to deal
with the rights that the communities profess to have over the forest and its resources.
Through reservation, the government believed, they could protect the forests from the ‗harmful‘
consumption patterns of the forest dwellers.
1. A forest in Odisha were declared to be ‗reserved‘ under the Forest Act, 1927 and the Forest
Settlement Officer published the notice in Odiya, which was the local vernacular of the State, in the
relevant villages. However, people residing in those villages spoke and wrote a distinct language and
thus did not read or write Odiya. When their rights were extinguished, they approached an NGO
which filed a public interest litigation on their behalf. The State of Odisha contended that due
procedure had been followed, but the representatives of the villagers disagreed. Decide the likely
outcome of this case.
a) The Forest Settlement Officer‘s notice will be held to be valid, as he used the local vernacular.
b) The Forest Settlement Officer‘s notice will be held invalid, as the language to be used was
supposed to be that understood by the villagers.
c) The Forest Settlement Officer‘s notice will be held to be valid, as he is no expected to know every
language every forest community speaks.
d) The Forest Settlement Officer‘s notice will be held invalid, as he is obligated to make the village
folk understand the consequences of such notice.
(54)
2. After the Section 4 notification, K Sai Ram decided to assign his rights to collect tendu leaves in the
forest to his daughter‘s husband, as was customary in nature. However, the son-in-law was stopped
from collecting these leaves by the Forest Settlement Officer, who cited Section 5. Was the Official‘s
correct in doing so?
a) Yes, the Official has the right to do so.
b) No, as there was no accrual of new rights, just a transfer which was permitted.
c) Yes, as the transfer of the right to collect tendu leaves could not be transferred without a written
agreement unless the same was inherited.
d) No, as the transfer of such a right was customary in nature and would not be altered by a Section
4 notice.
3. K Sai Ram decided to approach the Forest Settlement Official to claim his right to collect Tendu
leaves. The Official recognized his right, however, he stated that he could not exclude that land from
the reserved forest. He instead proposed that K Sai Ram surrender this right and take certain
monetary compensation in exchange. Can the Forest Official do so?
a) No, as the same is patently unfair to K Sai Ram.
b) No, as once the claim is made and the right accepted, doing this is essentially extinguishing it
which is not permissible.
c) Yes, the Officer has wide ranging powers.
d) Yes, the Officer has the option of offering compensation to the right holder instead of removing
the concerned land from the reserved area.
4. Principle: Once the rights have been extinguished and the forest has been declared to be
successfully reserved after settling all claims, the State government has the right to de-reserve any
area of the forest. The same will not revive the rights of the forest dwellers.
Once the forest in question was de-reserved, the State of Odisha gave the same to a mining company,
which felled trees in large quantities. Agitated, the forest dwellers rallied around the trees and
asserted their right over the forest that they had had since generations. The State of Odisha took the
villagers to Court. What will be the likely outcome of the case?
a) The Court will declare that the forest dwellers have had rights on the forest, and once the same
has been de-reserved, the same should begin to exist again.
b) The Court will declare that once the forest dwellers‘ rights have been extinguished, they cannot be
revived.
c) The Court will declare that a new exercise be initiated to re-identify the rights of the forest
community.
d) The Court will adhere to the judgment of the State of Odisha.
5. Principle 1: All forest-offences are offences listed in the Forest Act which are cognizable in nature.
Principle 2: A cognizable offence is one for which an individual can be arrested without a warrant.
Such offences are generally grave in nature.
Section 26 which concerns such offences states-
―(1) Any person who… in a reserved forest–
(d) trespasses or pastures cattle, or permits cattle to trespass;
(e) causes any damage by negligence in felling any tree or cutting or dragging any timber;
(f) fells, girdles, lops, or bums any tree or strips off the bark or leaves from, or otherwise damages,
the same…
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine
which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.‖
Rana, a cattle grazer, was passing by the forest when a few of his goats ventured into the forest and
began to graze. It so happened that a forest official passed by and caught a glimpse of the same. Rana
was arrested without a warrant and thrown into jail. Is the same permissible under the Act?
a) No, as the same is not a major but a minor offence.
b) Yes, as under the Act, this offence is cognizable.
c) No, as under the Act, such an offence is non-cognizable.
(55)
Passage 38
Ranveer and his family lived in a small neighborhood in Shimla. There was a general feeling of warmth
and community between the residents of this neighborhood, and they considered each other to be family.
Ranveer lived next door to Alia, and was interested in marrying her. However, she did not feel the same
way and refused.
Ranveer was enraged and fought with her, demanding to know the reasons. Alia responded by stating that
her saying no should be reason enough. Ranveer exited in a huff and proceeded to get extremely
intoxicated with his friends.
Later that day, Alia was found murdered in the drawing room o her house. Her body was spotted by her
mother who had come back from the market. Next to her body sat a sobbing Ranveer. Alia‘s mom called
the police. Ranveer kept on claiming that he was heading home when he heard Alia scream, and came in to
only find out that she had been killed.
Ranveer was arrested on charges of murder by the Shimla Police. The Police asserted that Ranveer‘s
involvement in the crime could be proved not only by circumstantial evidence, but by his own confession.
Apparently, three hours after being arrested, Ranveer had decided to come clean and confessed to the
police that he had killed Alia in a fit of drunken rage.
Section 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872 states-
―No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the
immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.‖
In essence, such a confession is not admissible before the Court.
Later on, Ranveer denied ever making that confession freely and argued that the Police was just trying to
frame him since they wished to close the investigation quickly. He further accused the police of
pressurizing him to confess.
For a confession to be admissible, when made to the Magistrate, the same has to be recorded in accordance
with Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
―164. Recording of confessions and statements.
(1) Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he has jurisdiction in the
case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this
Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the
commencement of the inquiry or trial: Provided that no confession shall be recorded by a police officer
on whom any power of a Magistrate has been conferred under any law for the time being in force.
(2) The Magistrate shall, before recording any such confession, explain to the person making it that he is
not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him; and the
Magistrate shall not record any such confession unless, upon questioning the person making it, he has
reason to believe that it is being made voluntarily.
(3) If at any time before the confession is recorded, the person appearing before the Magistrate states
that he is not willing to make the confession, the Magistrate shall not authorise the detention of such
person in police custody.
(4) Any such confession shall be complete only after recording the examination of an accused person and
shall be signed by the person making the confession; and the Magistrate shall make a memorandum at
the foot of such record to the following effect:-" I have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a
confession and that, if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him and
I believe that this confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was
read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true
account of the statement made by him.
(Signed) A. B. Magistrate."
If this procedure is not followed, the confession becomes inadmissible.
(56)
1. Is Ranveer‘s confession to the Police, while in their custody admissible before the Trial Court?
a) Yes, as confessions are considered valid evidence under the Act.
b) No, as section 26 specifically makes such confessions inadmissible.
c) Yes, as long as the police finds other evidence to corroborate the same.
d) No, as we don‘t know if the same was voluntary.
2. Ranveer was subsequently taken to the Magistrate by the Police, wherein he confessed that he had
killed Alia. However, the Magistrate did not pose any questions to ensure if Ranveer was confessing
voluntarily. Is the confession admissible?
a) No, as the magistrate did not follow the procedure under Section 164 of the CrPC.
b) Yes, as all that is required under Section 26 is that the confession is made before the magistrate.
c) Yes, as the Magistrate is only required to question the confessor if he/she seems like he/she is
being forced to confess. Since Ranveer confessed voluntarily, the confession is admissible.
d) Unless proven otherwise, any confession recorded by the Magistrate is inadmissible.
3. Assume that Ranveer refuses to confess. The Magistrate then sends him back to police custody, one
week after which Ranveer appears before the Magistrate again and gets his confession recorded. Is
the same a valid confession?
a) Yes, as this time Ranveer‘s confession seems voluntary.
b) No, as the Magistrate cannot send the confessor back to police custody if he refuses to confess.
c) Depends on if the procedure to record the confession was followed.
4. Section 24 of the Evidence Act states-
―A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of
the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise,
having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority
and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds, which would appear
to him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil
of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.‖
Principle: ―A person in authority‖ would mean the police who are in charge of the investigation and
the magistrate who is to try the case.
Imagine if after murdering Alia, Ranveer had exclaimed to his friends, ―Oh I have got rid of the
person who broke my heart!‖ would that be a valid confession?
a) No, as the same was not made before a Magistrate.
b) No, as this is simply a statement and not a confession.
c) Yes, as the same was made without any promise/fear/inducement to a person who was not in a
position of authority.
d) Yes, as the same was not made in police custody.
5. Assume that Ranveer did murder Alia. After this, he approached his self-righteous friend Dheeraj.
Dheeraj realized that Ranveer had done something wrong. He coaxed Ranveer to tell him what was
the matter. Once Ranveer refused to say anything, Dheeraj promised that he would get Ranveer out
of this conundrum by contacting people he knew higher up in the chain. Believing this, Ranveer
confesses. Is this confession admissible? The principles stated in Question 4 apply here as well.
a) Yes, as the same was made by Ranveer to a friend, who was not a person in authority.
b) No, as the same was made by Ranveer because of the promise made to him by Dheeraj.
c) Yes, as Ranveer has now voluntarily confessed.
d) No, as the confession is extra-judicial and was induced by Dheeraj‘s assurance of helping Ranveer
escape.
Passage 39
The Union Cabinet‘s approval of the amended Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Bill 2020 was
reported on January 29, 2020. This amendment was long due and has made some anticipated changes
demanded by women‘s groups and courts, including the Supreme Court. The Bill is not yet available in the
public domain and the rules and procedures around it are yet to be formulated. The information available
in the public domain, though, raises some issues.
(57)
Abortion (unsafe) accounts for almost ten per cent of maternal deaths in India. The Bill doesn‘t have any
new substantial provisions to avoid unsafe abortions. The right to safe abortion (at least till 12 weeks,
when it is safer) would have made state responsible to provide safe abortion services.
The proposed amendments will definitely reduce the burden on the judiciary, especially given the plethora
of cases seeking permission for abortion beyond the prescribed duration of 20 weeks. The court cases are
broadly of two types. The first are pregnancies that extend beyond 20 weeks of gestation as a result of rape,
incest, or of minor women. The new Bill rightly addresses these by extending prescribed period abortion to
24 weeks. However, such cases form a minuscule proportion of the total number. For such cases, even the
24–week cap can be done away with, provided the abortions can be safely done.
As the MTP Act currently stands, it provides:
―(2) Subject to the provisions of sub–section (4), a pregnancy may be terminated by a registered medical
practitioner,– (a) where the length of the pregnancy does not exceed twelve weeks if such medical
practitioner is, or (b) where the length of the pregnancy exceeds twelve weeks but does not exceed twenty
weeks, if not less than two registered medical practitioners are.
Of opinion, formed in good faith, that,– (i) the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the
life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury to physical or mental health; or (ii) there is a substantial
risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be
seriously handicapped.
Explanation 1: Where any pregnancy is alleged by the pregnant woman to have been caused by rape, the
anguish caused by such pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of
the pregnant woman.
Explanation 2: Where any pregnancy occurs as a result of failure of any device or method used by any
married woman or her husband for the purpose of limiting the number of children, the anguish caused by
such unwanted pregnancy may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the
pregnant woman.‖
Abortion beyond 12 weeks carries serious health risks and requires the expert opinion of two registered
medical practitioners under the current Act. This requirement has been delayed till 20 weeks, though the
physiology of pregnancy and risks associated with procedures for second trimester abortions haven‘t
changed significantly. Without the strengthening of public services, easing second trimester abortions
between 12–20 weeks opens the possibilities of more complications and endangers life of the woman.
[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Amendments to Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act are a
mixed bag, The Indian Express, 6 February 2020]
1. Jia, an unmarried woman finds out that she is pregnant in the tenth week. She and her boyfriend,
Shekhar, decide to get the child aborted as Jia does not want to risk leaving or taking a break from
her job due to the potential motherhood responsibilities. However, the registered medical
practitioner (RMP) they approached refused to do it citing legal reasons. Is the RMP legally justified
in refusing abortion services?
a) No, as both Jia and her boyfriend have consented to get the child aborted.
b) Yes, as Jia and her boyfriend are not married.
c) Yes, as the continuance of pregnancy cannot be said to constitute grave injury to Jia‘s physical or
mental health.
d) No, as it is Jia‘s choice to get her child aborted.
2. Consider Jia and Shekhar were married, all the other facts remaining the same. Does this fact change
your answer to 1?
a) Yes, as married couples have the right to go for abortion at any stage.
b) No, as the continuance of pregnancy still cannot be said to constitute grave injury to Jia‘s physical
or mental health.
c) Yes, as Jia and Shekhar had decided to limit the number of children.
d) No, as Jia and Shekhar should have been careful about the use of contraceptive if they did not
want to have children.
(58)
3. Consider that Jia and Shekhar are unsuccessful in getting an abortion, and the child is born. After
two years, Jia is pregnant again, despite the couple having used contraception. In the eleventh week,
they approach an RMP for abortion who refused to abort the child. Is the RMP justified in refusing
abortion services?
a) Yes, as the birth of the child cannot be said to cause any grave injury to Jia‘s mental or physical
health.
b) No, as Jia and Shekhar used a device to limit the number of children.
c) Yes, as they already had a child, they can clearly manage another.
d) None of the above reasons.
4. Ramona approaches an RMP for abortion in the twenty first week for her pregnancy, alleging that
she was raped. She tells the RMP that she was delayed as she was not allowed by her family members
to leave the house, for reasons of bringing disrepute to the family name. The RMP refused to abort
the child. Are the actions of the RMP justified per law?
a) No, as it was not Ramona‘s fault that she could not leave her house.
b) Yes, as the law mandates that pregnancy be not terminated beyond the twentieth week.
c) No, as the law allows abortion when the pregnancy is caused by reasons of rape.
d) Yes, as it is the RMP‘s discretion to carry out abortion services.
5. Consider the MTP Bill comes into effect. Would your answer to 4 change, all the other facts
remaining the same?
a) No, as the amended Act would still restrict the termination of pregnancy beyond the twenty week
mark.
b) Yes, as the amended Act would allow for pregnancy terminations upto twenty four weeks.
c) No, as the amended Act would allow for the RMP‘s discretion for cases of pregnancy terminations
beyond the twenty first week.
d) Yes, as the amended Act would do away with the requirement of the opinion of the RMP.
Passage 40
Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (PCA) necessitates previous sanction from a
competent authority for the prosecution of offences committed by public servants. Previous sanction is
mandatory only for prosecution and not for initiating investigation/inquiry. Moreover, it is restricted only
to serving public servants. Retired servants with impeccable integrity and a fine track record of possessing
robust decision–making abilities have suffered the brunt of lack of protection under the law. It reads as:
19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.—(1) No court shall take cognizance of an
offence punishable under sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant,
except with the previous sanction save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013—
(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not
removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable
from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.
India‘s ratification of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption 2003 had necessitated a review
of the existing provisions to the PCA. In order to meet its obligations under the aforesaid Convention, the
government of the time brought forward the Amending Bill.
Section 19 of the PCA creates a need for prior sanction to prosecute public servants on corruption charges
i.e., prior government approval before judicial proceedings can begin. This provision has a cousin in the
general law on criminal procedure – Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (CrPC). There used
to be two points of difference between these provisions. First, Section 19 of the PCA only applied to active
public servants, while Section 197 of the CrPC covered both active and retired public servants. Second,
Section 19 of the PCA applied in almost all cases under that law, while Section 197 of the CrPC applied to
all cases where the allegations against the public servant are in regard with the acts / omissions in
discharge of her official duties.
(59)
The 2018 amendments to the PCA eliminated the first distinction: now sanction to prosecute cases under
the PCA also apply to public servants employed ―at the time of commission of the alleged offence‖. Section
19 of the PCA will now also carry different rules on sanction in cases that are not instituted by law
enforcement, giving public servants more opportunities to stop proceedings at the outset.
1. David is a State Government employee. He is 60 years of age in 2016 and is due to retire when he
turns 62. He has an impeccable performance record. In 2016, the department he works in initiates
an inquiry to investigate into allegations of corruption and other offences under the PCA. He
challenges the commencement of such inquiry on the basis that no previous sanction was taken from
a competent authority. Which of the following statements is true?
a) The inquiry is liable to be quashed as David is a public servant and any inquiry against him on the
allegation of corruption requires a previous sanction.
b) The inquiry shall sustain as it is instituted to investigate a serious charge of corruption.
c) The inquiry is liable to be quashed because David has had an impeccable performance record.
d) The inquiry shall sustain the challenge as previous sanction is required only for prosecution and
not for an investigation or inquiry.
2. Consider the department finds the allegations of corruption against David to be true. It now seeks to
prosecute him in court. Which competent authority would it need to seek prior sanction from?
a) The Central Government
b) The State Government
c) The Governor of the State
d) None of the above
3. Consider David was prosecuted in court where he was acquitted of all charges of corruption under
the PCA. In 2019, due to another allegation, the inquiry against him was re–opened and it was found
that there were some charges for which David had not been prosecuted. The department seeks to
prosecute him in court for those charges.
a) No previous sanction is necessary as David is a retired public servant.
b) Previous sanction is necessary as it was the department‘s fault that it did not prosecute him
earlier.
c) No previous sanction is necessary as David has already been acquitted by the court of all previous
charges.
d) Previous sanction is necessary as the charges relate to a time when David was still a public
servant.
4. While still in service, David travelled to Rajasthan with his family and a few of his department
colleagues with their respective families. At the hotel of their stay, one night David sought to bribe
the hotel staff for serving alcohol at the bar beyond the permissible time. One of his department
colleagues takes note of this and complains about this to the department head. Would a sanction be
required to prosecute him?
a) Yes, as David is a public servant, the prosecution of any act of corruption by him would require
the previous sanction.
b) No, as David was out on a holiday with his family.
c) No, as the act of bribery was not in furtherance of his official duties.
d) The information is insufficient to decide if this is bribery under the PCA.
5. Consider there was no amendment to the PCA. What would be your answer to question 3?
I. No previous sanction is necessary as David is a retired public servant.
II. Previous sanction is necessary as it was the department‘s fault that it did not prosecute him
earlier.
III. David can be prosecuted under Section 197 of the CrPC.
IV. Previous sanction is necessary as the charges relate to a time when David was still a public
servant.
a) Only I b) Only III c) Both II and IV d) Both I and III
(60)
Answers and explanations LEGAL WORKBOOK
Answers and explanations

Passage 1 Passage 2
1. Option (c). 1. Option (b).
For someone to claim the defence of mistake As has been stated in the passage, in order to
of fact, it is important that the act that is claim the defence of insanity, the accused has
sought to be justified by means of the defence to prove their insanity at the time of the
be legal in the first place. In the given fact offence. In the given factual scenario, we are
situation, Michael hit the person he thought told that Thomas has had a history of
to be Jaisingh with an iron rod, which is an schizophrenia, nothing to suggest that he was
illegal activity in itself. Therefore, Michael still in that condition. Hence, he cannot be
cannot take the defence of mistake of fact said to be “insane” at the time of the offence.
irrespective of how genuinely he thought that 2. Option (b).
the person was a wanted criminal.
In the given scenario, it is established that
2. Option (b). Thomas was suffering from schizophrenia at
In the given factual scenario, Rishabh the time of the offence. Hence, while he was
reported the alleged smuggling of rice to the murdering his partner, he cannot be said to
police in good faith i.e. he genuinely believed have control over his mind/actions as he is
that there was an illegal activity being carried under the influence of his condition.
out. His actions were a mistake of fact, and 3. Option (b).
not law.
Shashi, being five years of age, is fully
3. Option (b). protected by Section 82 of the IPC which
states that nothing is an offence which is done
For a person to claim the defence of accident,
by a child under seven years of age.
it is imperative that the person does the
alleged act without any criminal intent or 4. Option (d).
knowledge. The injury caused must be the As per Section 83 of the IPC, for a child
result of a misfortune. In the given factual between the ages of seven and twelve nothing
scenario, Rajendra cannot be said to have the is considered an offence if he/she has not
criminal intent to harm a human being, as he sufficient maturity of understanding to judge
had good reason to believe that the person of the nature and consequences of his conduct
was an animal destroying his crop. on that occasion. If the same can be proven,
4. Option (d). then the child‟s actions would be considered
an offence. Hence, (d).
For the defence of accident to be successfully
claimed, it is necessary that the act, in 5. Option (b).
addition to being done without a criminal In the given factual scenario, Gabriel cannot
intent or knowledge, be lawful and done in a be said to have had the wine voluntarily as she
lawful manner. None of these ingredients are was under the impression that she was
reflected in Mihir‟s actions. consuming apple cider. Hence, she was
5. Option (b). intoxicated without her will. Hence, as per
Section 85 of the IPC, Gabriel whatever she
For the defence of accident to be successfully did as a result of intoxication (which was not
claimed, it is necessary that the act, in voluntary) cannot be said to be an offence.
addition to being done without a criminal
intent or knowledge, be lawful and done in a Passage 3
lawful manner. In this scenario, Mihir 1. Option (b).
intended to drive away the dog from the fight- For negligence to be established, it is
scene, and he cannot be said to have intended imperative that the person being alleged to be
the death of the child. negligent owed a duty of care to the person
who‟s alleging. In the present case, being
manufacturers, they owed a duty of care to all
(61)
the buyers of their product that the product be 3. Option (b).
safe to use. They clearly failed in such a duty
The practise of shooting is an inherently
as Harish suffered a skin disease because of
dangerous activity which by its very nature is
their product.
capable of hurting someone. In the present
2. Option (d). case, as soon as the bullet left the premises of
Harish‟s skin disease was contracted as a the police academy, it could have hit anyone.
result of an excess of sulphate in the product Since it hit the villager, and since the act does
which as explained in the fact situation was a not squarely fall in any of the exceptions as
fault of the manufacturer. For the purpose of described, Esther is liable for the injury
establishing negligence, it is necessary that caused to the villager.
the accused owe a duty of care because of 4. Option (b).
which the plaintiff has suffered some
damages. Here, the defect was because of the The activity of blasting carries with it inherent
manufacturer, for which the department store dangers, including flying debris. The child‟s
cannot be held liable, as far as the tort of parents may sue the construction company for
negligence is concerned. the child‟s medical bills, as well as his pain
and suffering, as ABC Construction is strictly
3. Option (c). liable in the situation.
For a person to be considered someone‟s 5. Option (d).
„neighbour‟ in order to establish negligence, it
is important that one is so closely and directly As has been explained in the passage, the rule
affected by another‟s act that one ought of absolute liability is a judicially created
reasonably to have them in contemplation as principle for which the perpetrator can claim
being so affected when one is directing one‟s no defence. It is usually applied in cases
mind to the acts or omissions which are called where the damage is massive, and victims
in question. In the present case, by no stretch need to be compensated immediately. In the
of imagination can the motor-cyclist be present scenario, the housing district having
considered to have had the pregnant woman been buried under the debris of the hill, the
in her mind while was driving. Hence, (c). people and their property has been severely
damaged. However, since there are no strict
4. Option (c). principles to go by in order to determine
The answer remains the same, as mere whether one is absolutely liable, it would be
witnessing of the accident does not change the upon the discretion of the court. Hence, (d).
fact that the motor-cyclist did not owe a duty Passage 5
of care to the woman. Hence, (c).
1. Option (b).
5. Option (b).
Rajiv wanted to sell the house for 20 lakh
Although Oscar was owned by Farah, at the rupees, and he would not have sold it for 5
time when the construction worker was lakh rupees had it not been for Ramesh
injured, Oscar was in his care. Hence, Boman threatening to release some secret documents
owed a duty of care to anyone who was to the press. Hence, Ramesh threatened to do
injured/hurt because of the dog. Therefore, an act because of which Rajiv had to enter
(b). into the contract.
Passage 4 2. Option (b).
1. Option (b). Girish, a teacher is at a position of dominance
As per the ruling in Ryland v. Fletcher, over Raj and he used that position of
whenever someone keeps something in their dominance to demand the sale of the watch
property for their benefit, it should not escape from Raj. Hence, the sale was a result of
and affect others. And in case it does, then the undue influence.
responsibility is on the owner, even if he was 3. Option (d).
not negligent.
Biswajeet‟s claim that the horse could be used
2. Option (b). on a farm was not true as the horse turned out
An earthquake is an act of God, without a to be lame. Therefore, Biswajeet
doubt. Since Karthik cannot be said to have misrepresented information to Arka which he
any control over that, he can successfully take knew to be false. Hence, he committed fraud.
that defence to escape liability.
(62)
4. Option (b). Passage 7
Selling the horse claiming it to be better than 1. Option (c).
someone else‟s horse does not constitute
In the given fact situation, Himesh would not
misrepresentation or presenting information
have parted with his money had he not taken
as false. As stated in the passage, it is a
Kailash‟s words to be true. It was on that basis
statement of opinion, hence (b).
that Himesh made the decision to be
5. Option (b). musically trained by Kailash. When Himesh
discovers the truth later, it amounts to a
In order to purchase Arijit‟s interest in the
dishonest concealment of facts by Kailash,
estate, Champa deliberately withheld
which as per the explanation in Section 415 of
information from Arijit. In other words, she
the IPC amounts to deception. Hence, (c).
committed fraud as she had full knowledge of
facts (Bhushan‟s death) and deliberately did 2. Option (d).
not disclose that to Arijit. Hence, (b).
For the offence of cheating, it is necessary that
Passage 6 the property which a person parts with be
fully owned by the person. In the given factual
1. Option (b).
scenario, the guitar belonged to Harsh, who is
Harry promised Bella that he would cover all Yash‟s brother. Hence, Yash cannot claim the
her legal costs in case Cindy decided to take offence of cheating against Parth.
an action against her. Therefore, the liability
3. Option (c).
that is sought to be indemnified is contingent,
something which may not even rise at all. For the offence of cheating, it is imperative
Hence, it is a contract of indemnity. that a person be deceived either fraudulently
or dishonestly whereby he is deprived of his
2. Option (d).
property. Although the guitar was Harsh‟s
The fact that Bella owed Cindy money is an property, he wasn‟t at the receiving end of
existing liability that has to be discharged, either fraud or deception. Hence, (c)
which is not contingent on some possibility.
4. Option (c).
Hence, it is a contract of guarantee.
In the given scenario, Amir intentionally led
3. Option (d).
Zainab to believe that he had performed his
As has been stated in the passage, the nature part of the contract. The contract required
of circumstances may also create indemnity him to deliver the goods to Zainab, and not
obligations impliedly. In the given fact anyone else. By delivering the product to
situation, Simone was acting at the Zainab‟s sister, Amir did not carry out his
instruction of Faraz so it is implied that obligations as per the contract while leading
whatever was represented by Faraz to Simone Zainab to believe that he did. Hence, (c).
was taken by Simone to be true, and any
5. Option (c).
losses suffered by Simone as a result have to
be made good by Faraz. For someone to be held liable for cheating, it
is necessary that another person be deprived
4. Option (c).
of their property deceptively. In the present
The contract between Holmer and Sam is that case, there is no deception at the hands of
of guarantee where Holmer is the surety, Zainab towards Amir. It is an issue of breach
assuring Sam to pay (although to a limited of Contract, but does not involve cheating.
extent) an amount for any tea he may supply
Passage 8
from time to time. Hence, every time Sam
supplies tea to Neil, Holmer is bound to pay 1. Option (c).
Sam in case Neil defaults. However, as per
For the offence of misappropriation to be
their contract, Holmer‟s liability is restricted
established, it is necessary that the person
to $100. Hence, (c).
who is accused of doing so, does that
5. Option (d). dishonestly. In the given scenario, Gagan took
the copy of the book believing it to be his.
Holmer promised Sam to cover for his legal
Hence, he did not take the copy with a
fees in case Sam wishes to sue in case Neil
dishonest intention.
defaulted on the payment for the tea-supply.
The act of suing is a contingency that might
not arise at all, even though the primary
liability is that of Neil to Sam. Hence, (d).
(63)
After Gagan has been made aware that he For a contract to be frustrated, there should
took Shilpa‟s copy of the book, there is no be such a change in the circumstances which
reason for him to retain the copy of the book. renders the contract impossible to be
Therefore, (c). performed. In the present case, A could have
3. Option (d). procured the goods from anyone if C was
unable to. Third party obligations do not
As Shilpa has agreed to this, Gagan does not frustrate a contract.
seem to have any dishonest intention.
Passage 10
4. Option (c).
1. Option (d).
As is provided in the explanation to Section
403, a person is guilty of the offence of Section 497 states that adultery is said to have
misappropriation if he appropriates happened only when someone has sexual
someone‟s property to his own use, when he intercourse with a person who is and whom
knows or has the means of discovering the he knows or has reason to believe to be the
owner of the property. In the given scenario, wife of another man, without the consent or
Sameer, despite making an attempt to find the connivance of that man. Therefore, Karan did
actual owner of the property, consequently not know or have any reason to believe that
sold it to gain profits. Hence, he cannot be Ishani was married to another man.
said to have had an honest intention. Hence, Therefore, he did not commit adultery.
(c). 2. Option (d).
5. Option (d).
Apart from the act of sexual intercourse
Sameer‟s intention was to restore the ring to outside marriage, for an offence of adultery to
its true owner. It was not to dishonestly occur it is also required that the man either
deprive Smita of the ring. knows or has a reason to believe that the
Passage 9 woman is married to another man. In the
situation described above, Karan has heard
1. Option (c). that Ishani might be married, so he has
Making gold appear out of thin air is an reason enough to believe that she might be
impossible act. Therefore, any contract to do married. Hence, (d).
an impossible act is void in itself. Hence, the 3. Option (c).
contract between Xavier and Connor is void.
As is stated in the passage, Section 198 in the
2. Option (c). Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that it
Rebello‟s mental condition deteriorated after is only the husband who has the right to file a
he and Maria had entered into a contract due criminal complaint and prosecute the offence
to which the contract could not be performed. of adultery. Therefore, in the given situation it
Therefore, according to Section 56 of the is only Ishani‟s husband who can file a
Indian Contract Act, when in a contract due to criminal complaint against Karan to prosecute
a subsequent event which renders the for adultery.
contract‟s performance impossible, the
4. Option (b).
contract is void.
3. Option (d). For the offence of adultery to have been
committed, it is required that whoever has
In the present scenario, the war was declared sexual intercourse with a person knows or has
after ABC and Fortune Growth had entered reason to believe that that person is the wife
into the contract for supply of coal. Therefore, of another man and does that without the
the performance of the contract was rendered consent or connivance of that man. Rafale‟s
impossible due to an event subsequent to the actions satisfy all the conditions specified in
contract. the section, therefore he is said to have
4. Option (b). committed adultery and it does not matter
whether Karan has committed adultery too.
Strong tidal waves are not the fault of either
Arunima or the production house. 5. Option (d).
Additionally, the contract required the song to All three statements I, III and IV are
performed and shot on the beach hence it generalizations which do nothing to support a
could not have been shot somewhere else. challenge against the constitutionality of
Hence, (b). Section 497 of the IPC. Hence, (d).
(64)
1. Option (c). As has been stated in the passage, for an act to
constitute desertion, the period of separation
As has been stated in the passage, the bailee is
must be a continuous period of two years. In
responsible to the bailor for any loss,
the present scenario, in the time period Disha
destruction or deterioration of the goods that
stays away, she comes back to India to meet
had been bailed to him. Since Himesh had
her family. Hence, (b).
borrowed the guitar from Pritam, any damage
to the guitar was also his responsibility. 3. Option (d).
2. Option (c). The intention to desert is not present in this
case as Himani doesn‟t intend to stay away
As has been stated in the passage, even in
from Saurabh.
cases of theft where there is no force or
violence the bailee still has the prima facie 4. Option (b).
burden of explaining that the loss or
As stated in the factual scenario, Himani left
disappearance of the goods in his custody is
Saurabh with the intention to return only
not attributable to his neglect or want of care.
upon getting an independent house. Since
3. Option (c). that is done now, any period of separation
beyond that shall constitute desertion, for a
As soon as Ramesh took the car out of the
continuous period of more than two years.
hotel‟s basement parking, his car was no
longer under bailment to the hotel. Therefore, 5. Option (c).
the hotel had no obligations as a bailee, as the
The meaning of these terms can be gauged
goods (the car) had been taken out of its
from the third paragraph in the passage,
possession by the bailor himself. Therefore,
where it states, immediately after these terms
(c).
appear: “…the fact of being separated alone
4. Option (b). cannot amount to desertion but has to be
accompanied with intention to desert as
Since Ramesh had not been told either about
well”. Hence, (c).
the leakage or that his car was being moved
outside, he would rightly be under the Passage 13
impression that the car was still under
1. Option (b).
bailment to the hotel. Therefore, for all
purposes, the hotel was the bailee even As has been stated in the passage, any
though the car was moved outside and contract entered into on behalf of the minor
eventually went missing. cannot bind the minor to the performance of
obligations under the contract. Hence, (b).
5. Option (a).
2. Option (c).
As is stated in Section 148 of the Indian
Contract Act, a bailee is supposed to dispose Irrespective of the fact that Sunayna would
the goods according to the directions of the have turned 18 years of age within a month of
person delivering them. In the present case, the signing of the contract, the fact remained
Hardik had expressly instructed Narendra that she was a minor at the time of the
that the sum of money was to be handed over contract. Hence, any agreement entered into
to Amit which Narendra did not follow. by her would be void, meaning she would not
Hence, Narendra is responsible for the loss of be bound by its terms.
the sum of money.
3. Option (b).
Passage 12
Even though a contract entered into by a
1. Option (b). minor is invalid, a minor can enforce the same
as long as it is for her benefit. In the present
For desertion to be a valid ground for divorce,
situation, non-payment of remuneration to
it is necessary that both – actual fact of
Sunayna acts against her benefit from the
separation and the intention to desert be
contract, hence, she can demand an
present. In the present factual scenario, Disha
enforcement of the same in a court of law.
has not displayed any intention to desert
Eshan willingly. As per the judgments 4. Option (b).
mentioned in the paragraph, the mere fact of
As is stated in the passage, a contract with a
staying away alone cannot constitute
minor cannot be ratified by the minor
desertion.
subsequent to her attaining the age of
(65)
majority. In the factual scenario presented 2. Option (b).
above, the agreement Sunayna and Pradeep
Whatever Jojo said is a matter of fact that can
seek to authorize/ratify is the one which was
be verified. Moreover, it can‟t be gathered that
entered into when Sunayna was still a minor.
there has been a loss of reputation of the local
Hence, (b).
legislator.
5. Option (d).
3. Option (b).
As is stated in the passage, if the parties to a
Whatever Jojo said is a matter of fact that can
void contract (due to the minority of one of
be verified. Moreover, it can‟t be gathered that
them) are interested, they can draw up a fresh
contract after the concerned party attains
legislator. The mere fact that he said it on a
majority. The new contract would require a
public bus does not change the fact that he
fresh consideration. Hence, (d).
had no reason to believe that it would cause a
Passage 14 loss of reputation for the legislator.
David and Farah have entered into a contract Knowing that he was speaking at a political
with lawful objects and with some rally, Brij Bhushan had full knowledge of the
consideration. Maintaining someone else‟s weight of his words. Moreover, Manorama
child is not an illegal act, something which being of an opposing political party the words
definitely does not defeat the provisions of are meant to cause a loss to her reputation.
another law. Hence, (b).
2. Option (d). 5. Option (b).
The arrangement between Trixie and Katya Irrespective of the fact that the person being
seeks to restrict one party from taking spoken about belonged to the same political
recourse to legal proceedings/contain ongoing party as Brij Bhushan, his words continue to
legal proceedings. This is an unlawful object, be the same, and therefore their impact also
and hence the contract is void. remains the same, as far as the reputation of
the other person is concerned.
3. Option (b).
Passage 16
Being Khurana‟s agent, Raja can only show
properties to prospective purchasers, and 1. Option (b).
nothing beyond that. Any activity beyond this
The reason for delay in the starting of the boat
would require an authorization by Khurana
is said to be because of an avoidable cause.
which is absent in the present case. Hence,
Hence, The measure of the compensation
Raja‟s promise to obtain lease of that property
payable to Dreyfus by Louis is the difference
is based on an illegal act. Hence, (b).
between the price which Dreyfus could have
4. Option (b). obtained for the cargo at Kolkata at the time
when it would have arrived if forwarded in
Even though the supervision of illegal traffic
due course, and its market price at the time
is one portion of Kennedy‟s duties, it still is an
when it actually arrived.
unlawful act. It does not matter that it forms
just one part of the object. As long as the 2. Option (b).
object has any illegality to its nature, any
Miranda had provided the warranty to Emily
contract to do the same, shall be void.
on the basis of the merchandise she received
5. Option (c). from Anna. Therefore, Anna should
reimburse Miranda the amount she paid to
There is nothing unlawful in A‟s promise to B,
Emily.
and C‟s liability to pay B does not affect A‟s
ability to do the same. Hence, (c). 3. Option (d).
Passage 15 Paras is obliged to make compensation to
Ravi for the breach of his contract. Amar must
1. Option (c).
make compensation to Paras for the cost of
Whatever Jojo said is a matter of fact that can rebuilding the house, for the rent lost, and for
be verified. Moreover, it can‟t be gathered that the compensation made to Ravi.
legislator.
(66)
4. Option (b). 4. Option (d).
Aashish is entitled to receive from Mahendra, The agreement was valid, as it fell within the
by way of compensation, the amount, if any, exception to S. 27.
by which the contract price exceeds that
5. Option (d).
which Mahendra can obtain for the rice at the
time when Mahendra informs Aashish that he The agreement was held to be devoid of any
will not accept it. content on the restraint of trade.
5. Option (a). Passage 21
B is entitled to recover from A the cost of 1. Option (d).
making the repairs conform to the contract.
2. Option (a).
Passage 17
3. Option (b).
1. Option (b).
4. Option (b).
2. Option (d).
5. Option (a).
3. Option (b).
Passage 22
4. Option (a).
1. Option (c).
5. Option (b).
It was the scientists‟ responsibility to make
Passage 18 sure that the gases don‟t harm anyone.
1. Option (d). 2. Option (c).
2. Option (c). Ajit had taken due care. Negligence was on
the part of Ajit.
3. Option (d).
3. Option (c).
4. Option (d).
The baby didn‟t die of any negligence on the
5. Option (c).
part of the doctor.
Passage 19
4. Option (c).
1. Option (d).
The doctors were not negligent in the blood
2. Option (b). transfusion procedure, hence not liable for
criminal negligence.
3. Option (d).
5. Option (b).
4. Option (c).
There is no substantial evidence to prove that
As can be seen from the passage culpable
the doctor‟s action caused the blindness.
homicide is not murder at times if certain
exceptional conditions are met. However, if it Passage 23
satisfies requirements of murder, culpable
1. Option (c).
homicide amounts to murder.
Amit took the money in his personal capacity
5. Option (d).
and hence BioPharma Ltd. doesn‟t have any
None of the above statements are correct. responsibility over the money.
Passage 20 2. Option (a).
1. Option (c). The document was signed and medical
negligence is attributed to a relatively higher
Because the agreement was to restrain Zahida
degree of negligence.
from opening a shop in the same locality for
15 years. 3. Option (c).
2. Option (d). The driver would be liable because it was
ultimately him who was being careless.
Because the agreement was restraining in
nature. 4. Option (c).
3. Option (b). Vishal was hired only for the job of a
conductor.
Because the agreement was restraining in
nature.
(67)
5. Option (c). Passage 26
Since Baruah lighting a cigarette was not a 1. Option (b).
part of his job, hence Asim wouldn‟t be liable.
Rationale: Here, although Pulkit was doing an
Passage 24 unlawful act, he was not guilty of culpable
homicide, as he did not intend to kill Bahram
1. Option (a).
or to cause death by doing an act that he knew
Key was held by the lady and there was no was likely to cause death.
actual delivery of possession, hence no
2. Option (c).
bailment.
Rationale: For the offence of murder, there
2. Option (c).
has to be an occurrence of death.
Holding the defendant liable, person who lets
3. Option (b).
out carriages is not responsible for all defects
discoverable or not; he is not an insurer Rationale: For the offence of murder, there
against all the defects which care and skill has to be an occurrence of death.
guard against. His duty is to supply a carriage
4. Option (a).
as fit for the purpose for which it is hired as
care and skill can render it. Rationale: It was held that the accused was
guilty of murder.
3. Option (c).
5. Option (a).
The defendant should have been careful about
the launch being fit for the purpose for which Rationale: Because Srishti was hit on the head
it was hired as reasonable care and skill could and kicked on the abdomen. Under normal
make it. circumstances, the injuries of such nature lead
to risk of death in pregnant woman.
4. Option (a).
Passage 27
While the car is in the valet‟s possession, he is
responsible for taking reasonable care of 1. Option (a).
Kevin‟s car.
The case falls squarely as per paragraph
5. Option (a). provided above.
The guest sued the hotel as the bailee of the 2. Option (d).
ring, as she had delivered possession of the
The parties were married as per married
ring to the hotel‟s employee for the purpose of
rituals. The divorce cannot be granted under
having it delivered to the jeweller.
HMA. There is nothing provided in para
Passage 25 which suggests irretrievable breakdown is a
ground available.
1. Option (c).
3. Option (d).
The intention of depriving Zeyba of the
property as a security for his debt, he commits The ground for cruelty is available to them as
theft, as he takes it dishonestly. per discussions of the para.
2. Option (a). 4. Option (d).
Here A takes dishonestly; A has therefore All of the factors show that the relationship
committed theft. appears to have deteriorated to such an extent
that both parties cannot live with each other.
3. Option (d).
5. Option (d).
4. Option (a).
The person cannot take advantage of its own
Permanent taking away of a person‟s property
wrong.
is not essential, even a temporary takeaway of
the property with dishonest intention is Passage 28
enough to constitute the offence of theft.
1. Option (a).
5. Option (a).
The facts are not enough to proof that the
The moment the object is moved from its accused‟s right will be endangered if the case
original position with a dishonest intention, is tried or appealed in Patna.
the theft occurs.
(68)
2. Option (b). Passage 31
The fact that the prosecutor is acting actively As stated in the principle, while actions of an
shows that the state is trying to ensure fair agent bind the principal, a special case arises
trial for the victims. for insurance agents where they behave not as
the agents of the Company but of the policy
4. Option (b).
holders. Here, when Ravi was aiding Mr.
5. Option (a). Sharma fill the form, Mr. Sharma allowed him
to fill the requisite information and signed in
The accused as still at risk.
the relevant places. Ravi was, in this
Passage 29 circumstance, acting as Mr. Sharma‟s agent,
and thus his misrepresentations also bound
1. Option (d).
Mr. Sharma.
All the ingredients are proved as there was a
2. Option (b).
sudden fight in Kitchen wherein Aditya took
the knife. The quoted judgment clearly mentions that
LACL will only be bound by actions its agents
2. Option (c).
are expressly authorized to do. Since Ravi‟s
Mere exchange of hot words is not enough to duties do not include signing on behalf of
commit a murder, and ordinarily it can be LACL expressly, he is not authorized to do so
assumed that the person acted with and hence his actions do not bind the
premeditation. company. There was thus no valid policy.
Because Sartaj did not had time to reflect on Ravi was only authorized to collect premiums
his actions, and the case squarely falls within till the policy remained in force. In this case,
the exception. the policy had lapsed. Hence, Ravi was
unauthorized to collect the premium and
4. Option (a).
since the policy has lapsed, Ms. Malvika
There was no exchange of physical blows cannot make a valid claim. Ravi‟s action of
between the parties. collecting the premium does not bind LACL
and does not constitute a waiver.
5. Option (c).
4. Option (c).
The fight was premeditated.
This option is the most correct one. Ravi was
6. Option (b).
authorized to collect the premiums, and once
He acted in cruel manner. he does, his action binds LACL. The fact that
he misplaced the premium may affect his
Passage 30
equation with LACL, but does not affect
1. Option (c). Malvika‟s equation with LACL as she has
fulfilled her obligation.
As per broad powers under the Article 142
outlined in the paragraph, the Supreme Court 5. Option (d).
can order to transfer the prisoner.
The principle requires that the premium be
2. Option (c). paid in the exact prescribed form. Hence, no
other method is valid. Ms. Malvika cannot
There is a specific provision of law that only
claim that she has paid the premium.
executive can order the transfer. The court
will be essentially supplanting the law. Passage 32
As mentioned in paragraph, Article 142 is a The covenant is void as it is not reasonable in
part of basic structure doctrine. nature. In the Golikari case, as discussed
above, a line explicitly states that a period
4. Option (c).
which substantially exceeds 5 years may be hit
As mentioned in paragraph, author argues by the section. Here, 25 years does exceed the
that Supreme Court can do both procedural period substantially and is unreasonable.
and substantive justice as long as it is not
acting as legislature to supplement the law.
(69)
2. Option (a). 5. Option (c).
8 years of time does not “substantially exceed” Principle 2 clearly states that there can be no
5 years, and thus applying the Golikari judgment, ratification of a void agreement. Since the
the covenant would be held to be reasonable. agreement entered into between Rohan and
Sunderlal was void due to Rohan‟s minority- it
3. Option (b).
cannot become valid through ratification.
The principle clearly states that any post-
Passage 34
termination restraint violates Section 27 of
the Indian Contract. The question of a 1. Option (c).
reasonable/unreasonable covenant does not
For a legal presumption of death to kick in,
arise.
the spouse must have been gone for 7 years.
4. Option (c). When Rahul got married, Tina had only been
gone for 6 years and 9 months and was thus
This also comes from the principle, but the
alive. Rahul thus remarried in Tina‟s lifetime
candidates will have to read it carefully. If
and committed bigamy.
they apply the same principle as they did in
Rigsby‟s case, they will pick the erroneous 2. Option (d).
option.
Anjali‟s marriage with Rahul is void, and thus
5. Option (b). she cannot seek a divorce. A divorce requires a
valid marriage to exist between the spouses.
Flying Automobiles barred Albert Motors
from conducting a similar business anywhere. 3. Option (b).
They set no local limits or any other relevant
The stated section clearly allows for marriages
limits, making this agreement unreasonable.
to be solemnized in accordance with the
Though sale of goodwill is an exception to
customary rites and ceremonies of either
Section 27, it is a limited one as highlighted in
party. It only states that if such rituals include
the text of the provision.
saptapadi, the marriage becomes binding on
Passage 33 the completion of the seventh step.
1. Option (a). 4. Option (b).
Irrespective of Rohan‟s misrepresentation, the If the letters were dated two years prior to
fact remains that he is a minor and thus lacks Rahul‟s marriage, it means that they were
the capacity to enter into a legally binding received by Rahul six years after she was
contract. The options on estoppel should be gone. Since Raul had received those letters
treated as irrelevant at the start since the before the 7 year period, he had „heard from
passage makes no reference to the principle. her‟ and thus the legal presumption would not
apply.
2. Option (b).
5. Option (b).
Since Rohan lacked the capacity to enter into
a legally binding one in the first place, The Section is addresses “Whoever, having a
requiring Rohan to supply the promised husband or wife living, marries…” Here,
goods would be like enforcing a void contract. Rahul‟s wife was living and thus he will be
held liable and not Anjali.
3. Option (b).
Passage 35
Principle 3 clearly states that a minor, who
has misrepresented his age, can be asked to 1. Option (c).
return the goods as long as they are in his
The passage clearly states that to avail
possession. Rohan has the watch in his
surrogacy services, both the husband and the
possession and can thus be asked to restore
wife have to be Indian citizens. Thus, Pammi
the same to Surya.
and Raj cannot avail the surrogacy services.
4. Option (b).
2. Option (d).
Principle 4 and not 3 will be applicable here,
Though (c) seems like the fairest option, the
since Rohan has approached the Court to
Bill actually only applies married couples to
cancel the agreement. Thus, he will be
seek surrogacy services, provided they fulfill
required to return the benefit (advance) to the
the discussed conditions.
customer, but would not be compelled to give
away the scooter as that would be enforcing a
void contract.
(70)
3. Option (c). function of conducting the exams was
The paragraph lays down that a couple that administrative in nature, and for that
already has a child (whether their own or purpose, the judiciary was State.
adopted) cannot opt for surrogacy except in Passage 37
very few circumstances such as- if the child “is 1. Option (a).
mentally or physically challenged or suffers
from life threatening disorder or fatal illness Though the village folk did not know how to
with no permanent cure…” Their situation speak/read Odiya, it was the local vernacular
does not fit any of those grounds. and thus the Forest Settlement Officer‟s
notice was valid. That is the extent of his duty
4. Option (a). under Section 4.
The Act states that only ever-married close 2. Option (c).
relatives, who already have child of their own
can be surrogate mothers. Since Reshma does Here, the passing of right to collect tendu
not have a child of her own, she cannot be a leaves was by operation of custom and not
surrogate for anyone. inheritance or through a written contract.
Section 5 explicitly bars such transfers.
5. Option (b).
3. Option (d).
Paying the medical bills and taking an
insurance for the benefit of the surrogate are While (c) is too general, option (d) is in line
recognized to be exceptions to the general with Section 11(ii) which gives the Officer the
„monetary incentives‟ which make surrogacy power to ask the right-holder to surrender his
commercial in nature. rights in exchange for compensation.
1. Option (d). This option is in line with the stated principle.
Though option (b) seems like the fairest, the
Though picking (a) might be intuitive, the same goes against the principle. Option (c)
paragraph begins with stating that the and (d) have no basis in the Act or the
structural test (which requires pervasive passage.
control) has been preferred and the functional
test has been rejected. Since BCCI is not the 5. Option (b).
state structurally, the Court will not declare it Principle 1 clearly states that all forest
to be „State‟ under Article 12. offences are cognizable, and principle 2
2. Option (b). explains what such offences are. Though it
also states that such offences are generally
Article 14 posits the duty on the State, and „grave‟ in nature, it does not entail that all
thus can only be claimed against the State. cognizable offences are necessarily always
Option (d) might also look correct, but it is grave in nature.
too general a conclusion and thus (b) is the
most appropriate response. Passage 38
For seeking a remedy under Article 226, the Section 26 makes confessions given in police
entity in question need not be „State‟. Using custody expressly inadmissible. Hence,
the analogy of the AIFF, the BCCI does Ranveer‟s confession is not admissible.
perform public functions and thus a remedy 2. Option (a).
can be claimed against it using Article 226.
The Magistrate is specifically requires, under
4. Option (c). Section 164(2), to pose questions to the
The first paragraph of this passage states that confessor to ensure that the confession is
„mere regulatory control does not suffice‟, voluntary. Since the procedure was not
while P.K. Biswas also lays down that the followed, the confession in question is
entity has to be pervasively controlled inadmissible.
financially, functionally and administratively. 3. Option (b).
Since this is not the case, Birla industries is
Section 164(3) clearly prohibits the magistrate
not State.
from doing what he did in this situation. Such
5. Option (d). a person has to be kept in judicial custody, not
The case of Rupa Ashok Hurra removed the police custody. Since the Magistrate sent
judiciary from the ambit of state insofar as Ranveer back to police custody, any confession
judicial proceedings were concerned. The made by him after cannot be admissible.
(71)
4. Option (c). 5. Option (B).
The confession was made by Ranveer to his As has been stated in the passage, the MTP
friends. Extra-judicial confessions are Bill seeks to increase the limit upto which
admissible and valid as long as Section 24 is women can seek abortion from twenty to
not attracted. Since the situation does not fall twenty four weeks. Hence, Ramona would be
into the ambit of Section 24, Ranveer‟s able to seek abortion in the twenty first week
confession is valid and admissible. of her pregnancy. Option (d) goes beyond the
5. Option (a). scope of the passage. Hence, (b).
The requirements of Section 24 are Passage 40

cumulative in nature. A confession is only 1. Option (D).
inadmissible if it is “caused by any The passage clearly mentions that Section 19
inducement…” which is “proceeding from a of the PCA makes prior approval of a
person in authority.” As „person in authority‟ competent authority mandatory only when a
is confined to the police and the magistrate, public servant is sought to be prosecuted, and
Dheeraj falls outside its ambit. Thus, even if not when there is an inquiry or investigation
the confession was induced by a promise, it is against him. David‟s impeccable performance
admissible. record doesn‟t make a valid ground for
Passage 39 challenging the commencement of the
1. Option (C). investigation itself.
As per the current law (pending the passing of 2. Option (B).

the MTP Bill), a registered medical As per Section 19(b), any person who is
practitioner can terminate a woman‟s employed in connection with the affairs of the
pregnancy within 12 weeks of the pregnancy if State, a previous sanction is required from the
the continuance of such pregnancy causes State Government.
grave injury to the physical or mental health 3. Option (D).
of the woman. What constitutes “grave injury
to the physical or mental health” is provided As per the 2018 amendment, the condition of
for in the Explanation which states that when a previous sanction to prosecute cases under
pregnancy is alleged to have been caused by the PCA also applies to public servants
rape, then consequential anguish constitutes employed “at the time of commission of the
injury to physical/mental health or when a alleged offence”. Since the charges relate to a
married couple, while trying to limit the time when David was still a public servant, a
number of children, are met with the failure of previous sanction would be required to
a device/method of doing the same. The prosecute him.
factual scenario does not mention any of these 4. Option (D).
factors. Hence, (c).
Section 19 of the PCA applies in almost all
2. Option (B). cases under that law, as stated in the passage.
A married woman can seek abortion if the However, there is not sufficient information
pregnancy is the result of the failure of a to conclude whether the act as described in
device or method used by the married couple the fact-situation above constitutes an offence
to limit the number of children. under the PCA. Hence, (d).
3. Option (B). 5. Option (D).
Since Jia and Shekhar already have a child, Since we are to imagine a scenario where there
their intention to limit the number of further has been no amendment to the PCA, therefore,
children can be better understood now. The a prior sanction is no longer required for a
continuance of pregnancy, a result of the retired public servant. Secondly, as has been
failure of a method/device to limit the number stated in the passage, Section 197 of the CrPC
of children can be said to cause anguish which applies to both serving and retired public
constitutes grave injury to the physical or servants. Therefore, both statements I and III.
mental health to Jia. Hence, (b). are correct. Hence, (d).
4. Option (B).
The MTP Act states that pregnancy can be
terminated only within the twenty week
period. This restriction applies even in the
cases of rape. Hence, (b).
(72)

Legal Workbook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Workbook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEGAL

Questions ………………….…………………………..……..………………………..……. 1-60

a) Yes, as two years of continuous separation has occurred.

a) No, as Himani might still return to Saurabh‘s house.

a) Intention to desert and the actual act of desertion respectively.

a) Yes, as the text by Jojo was sent in circulation to more people.

In the following circumstances, nominal damages are awarded to the plaintiff:

a) Yes, because there was a consideration in this agreement.

a) No, because there was no consideration in the agreement.

Keep in mind the following-

Principle 2: There can be no ratification of a void agreement.

1. Did a valid contract exist between Rohan and YTWB?

Answers and explanations

The requirements of Section 24 are Passage 40

As per the current law (pending the passing of 2. Option (B).

You might also like