| GyanCentral - The hub for engineering and law students - IIT-JEE, AIEEE, BITSAT, CLAT, AILET - 2012: Legal Reasoning- 3 Sep 30th 2012, 21:09 | 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- 3 Sep 30th 2012, 20:10 1. Legal Principle- Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by the Indian Penal Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall be punished. Factual Situation- X stays in South Extension, New Delhi. One evening he thought to steal all the gold jewellery from Mehra and Sons Company at South Extension branch. He called his two friends to help him in such of his drive towards being rich overnight. Then the trio made the underground hole towards the Mehra & Sons from north side during midnight. During such process one of his friends died when collided with the concrete of the groundfloor of Mehra and Sons. X and his another friend also received injuries and became unsuccessful to enter into the Mehra & Sons. On the information from the night watchman the police arrived at the spot and arrested Mr X and his surviving friend and sent the body and sent the body of their dead friend to the AIIMS for post-mortem after necessary legal formalities. Mr X and his surviving friend told the police that they have not committed any theft, even they have not entered into such jewellery shop and their friend also died hence they are neither responsible for breaking an law nor to jewellery shop. Decide. Decision a. X and his friend are not liable because their friend died. He along with his friend were injured. b. X and his friend not liable because even they have not touched any jewellery. c. X and his friend can be responsible because their act attracts the other thieves to try at Mehra & Sons who have more jewellery and it is a problem in future for such a big jewellery shop. d. X and his friend can be held responsible because they attempted to commit an offence under the IPC and their attempt did an act towards the commission of offence. answer- d 2. Legal Principle- Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, and that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman , or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman , shall be punished. Factual Situation- Ms. Praveen works in an Export House in Greater Noida. There are more than 150 employees along with workers in such company. One of the employees Ritesh wanted to have some talk with Ms. Praveen. But she scolded him in front of some 50 workers in employee's canteen. Taking this grudge, Ritesh every day during entry at morning pats Ms. Praveen's hand and shakes her right hand for a few minutes against her will. One day she made up her mind and informed to her boss. But the boss considering the work efficiency of Ritesh did not take any action. She alternatively informed the police. Police arrested Ritesh. Ritesh defended himself on the point that he used to shake her hand and it is a manner of wishing a colleague and second point is that his boss is competent authority to take action because it is the work place. Decision a. Ritesh shall be punished because shaking hand with a girl against her will amounts to the sexual harassment at work place and such a act is subject to be prosecuted. b. Ritesh can be punished only by his Boss not by Court of Law and if his Boss forgives then there is not law in India to punish him. c. Ritesh shall not be punished because shaking hand is not offence in India. d. Ritesh shall not be punished because he acts in such manner only during office hour and before many employees not in an abandoned area. Answer- a 3. Legal Principle- Consumer for any transaction has own choice for the better taste of goods and services. Factual Situation- Rama Rao, a merchant from Bangalore was on a tour in Jaisalmer. he came across a shop, which was on a tour in Jaisalmer. He came across a shop, which was selling dry fruits. Rao saw some oats, which were good and decided to purchase the same. After returning to Bangalore, he wrote a letter to the shop in Jaisalmer asking them to send one quintal of good oats. After about 15 days, he receives one quintal of oats, but he found them to be very old. He rejected the consignment and asked them for return of the money paid by him. They replied saying that oats would become good only when they were old. But he wanted new oats, which according to him were good. Decision a. Rama Rao will succeed because it is the consumer's own choice to decide the good or badness of the goods. b. Rama Rao will succeed because he has paid money. c. Ram Rao will not succeed because the old oats are good. d. Rama Rao will not succeed because he has to, as per seller act direction. Answer- a 4. Principle: The relationship between partners is governed by the deed of the agreement entered into by them in order to establish the partnership firm. Facts: A, B and C constitute ABC & Co. a partnership firm engaged in the trade of pulses, spices and edible oils. The partnership deed provide that C alone shall be liable for transactions involving trade of pulses. Mohan sells 100 kg of pulses to A for ABC & Co. and A asks Mohan to recover the amount from C citing the term in the partnership deed. a. Mohan can recover the amount only from C. b. C is liable to pay Mohan as per the term in the deed. c. Mohan is not bound to recover the amount only from C. d. A is liable to pay Mohan since he bought on behalf of the firm. Answer-b 5. Legal Principle: When a person does something that causes reasonable apprehension of imminent use of unlawful force in the mind of another person, he is liable for the tort of assault. Facts: Gaurav accidentally brushes against his classmate Himanshu while they're leaving for the college football field to watch a football match. Himanshu accosts Gaurav, tells him he would be cut to pieces for his audacity and walks away. Gaurav sues Himanshu for assault. a. Law does not take note of such trifles. b. Himanshu is liable for the tort of assault. c. Himanshu is not liable for assault. d. Gaurav is liable for battery. Answer- c | | | |  | |
No comments:
Post a Comment