| GyanCentral - The hub for engineering and law students - IIT-JEE, AIEEE, BITSAT, CLAT, AILET - 2012: Legal Reasoning- 2 Sep 30th 2012, 01:58 | GyanCentral - The hub for engineering and law students - IIT-JEE, AIEEE, BITSAT, CLAT, AILET - 2012 | | The most comprehensive career education and test preparation forums in india. | | | Legal Reasoning- 2 Sep 30th 2012, 01:19 1. Legal Principle- The defamatory statement if it based on ground of truth, good faith or public interest, and strikes a balance between freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Constitution of India and individual's right of reputation then such defamation would not attract penalty. Factual Situation- Mr Sahib's friend while facing a trial in a court was compelled to pay Rs 750 to Public Prosecutor and Assistant Public Prosecutors for getting their help to have long dates for trial. Mr Sahib from his child hood hates corruption. Hence he wrote an article on this fact and issue as " How the justice stands at a distance as a helpless spectator so as to the manner in which the illicit bribe money from plaintiff and defendants enters into the pockets of the Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors and the extent to which it reaches and to which use it is put". Decision a. Mr Sahib cannot be punished because his article is a lesson to the people doing corrupt practice. b. Mr Sahib cannot be punished because his article is like a public interest petition and can break such practice in future. c. Mr Sahib can be punished because this remark is defamatory of the group of persons referred to it and there is no proof of the facts and it is not exception to the punishment. d. Mr Sahib can be prosecuted because his friend had not told him to write against Public Prosecutor and Assistant Answer- c 2. Legal Principle- Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property shall be punishable. Factual Situation- A and B are joint owners of a Maruti Car, one day A took the car from B's garage to have a morning tour without knowledge of B. On the road A's friend C met him and took the car to drop his in school and on the way to school he met with an accident with the school bus and the car was damaged. B being disgusted on the fact of A's taking out car without his consent , blamed A and lodged an FIR in local police station that A has stolen the car. Decision a. A has committed the offence of theft because he has not taken the consent of B. b. A is guilt of theft because he has taken and driven the car the car and taking away of movable property is the essential element in offence of theft. c. A is not guilty of theft because he is also one owner of the car and his taking away does not amount to his intention to steal and as he is also the owner the consent of B is not merely required. d. A is not guilty of theft rather his friend C is liable for theft. Answer- C 3. Legal Principle- Whoever with intent to cause, or knows that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property , or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof or destroys or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously , commits mischief. Factual Situation- Q, knowing that his assets are about to be taken in execution in order to satisfy a debt due from him to Z, destroys those assets, with intention of thereby preventing Z from obtaining satisfaction of the debt and it caused damages to Z. Decide whether Q has committed any mischief. Decision- a. Q commits mischief, because he knowingly caused the damages to Z. b. Q does not commit mischief because his act cannot be proved on the ground of law and evidence in its support. c. Q cannot be punished because his assets is not sufficient to obtain satisfaction of debt. d. Q can be prosecuted only if debt is good debt. Answer-a 4. PRINCIPLE: A partner is liable for the debts incurred by the other partners in the course of partnership. FACTS: Archit and Tushar enter into a partnership to produce a film, wherein Archit also directs the movie. The movie bombed at the box office. Consequently, they run into financial difficulties and the partnership ends. Tushar goes to Abbas to borrow some money, which Abbas understands is for repaying the debts from the partnership. Tushar takes the money and absconds to Maldives. Abbas sues Archit for the amount. Decide. a-Archit is liable to return the money as it was his partner, Tushar who directed the movie. b-Abbas has been negligent in not properly enquiring the purpose for which Tushar borrowed the money. Archit is not liable to pay him back according to the principle of contributory negligence. c-Archit is not liable as Tushar absconded with the money instead of using it to pay off the debts in the partnership. d-Archit is not liable as by the time Tushar borrowed money from Abbas, the partnership was no more in existence. Answer- d 5.Principle: A person is liable for only those damages which he can reasonably foresee. Facts: On one construction site the defendant was negligent and an asbestos cement cover slipped from his hand to fall into a tub of hot molten liquid. In moments there was an explosion and the plaintiff who was standing nearby watching the construction in progress gets injured. It was found that the explosion was caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat acting on asbestos. The injuries were caused by steam which was produced in this reaction and not by molten liquid. Is the defendant liable? a) The defendant is not liable because the explosion is not foreseeable b) The defendant is liable because he was negligent. c) The defendant is not liable because the plaintiff was an onlooker and he did not owe a duty of care to him. Answer- a | | | |  | |
No comments:
Post a Comment