Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: Foreign judgment binds the parties and is conclusive unless it is obtained by fraud.
Facts: A obtains a judgment from the US court by producing fake documents.
विकल्प
New Suit can be filed in India on the same facts
Judgment can be enforced in US
Judgment can be enforced in India
A new suit can not be filed in India on the same facts
उत्तर
New Suit can be filed in India on the same facts
Explanation:
The principle and the fact are clear. The principal says the foreign judgment binds the parties unless they have been obtained by fraud. The fact is that A has received foreign judgment, but fraudulently. Therefore, it is not binding on the parties. So, a new suit can be filed.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: Copyright law protects only work. 'Work' means cinematographic film but does not include performance by an actor in a cinematographic film.
Facts: Alia Bhatt acted in a movie.
Principle: Import means bringing some consignment into India from a foreign country.
Facts: A consignment from Sri Lanka entered the territorial waters of India. However, this consignment never crossed the Indian custom barrier nor did it enter into the stream of commerce in India.
Volenti nonfit injuria’ refers to:
Mark the best option:
Principles: Whoever takes away anything from the land of any person without the person's consent is said to commit theft. A thing so long as it is attached to the earth is not subject to theft, but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft soon as itis severed from the earth.
Facts: Y cuts down a tree standing on the land of X with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of X's possession without the consent of X. But Y is yet to take away the tree out of X's possession.
Decide
The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a more recent development than the traditional torts of trespass to the person. To which of those torts is it most closely related?
When the master is held liable for the wrongful acts of his servant, the liability is
The question contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. A list of probable decisions and reasons are given.
Principles:
1. A master shall be liable for the fraudulent acts of his servants committed in the course of employment.
2. Whether an act is committed in the course of employment has to be judged in the context of the case.
3. Both master and third parties must exercise reasonable care in this regard.
Facts:
Rama Bhai was an uneducated widow and she opened a'S.B. account with Syndicate Bank with the help of her nephew by name Keshav who was at that time working as a clerk in the Bank. 'Keshav used to deposit the money of Rama Bhai from time to time' and get the entries done in the passbook. After a year or so, Keshav was dismissed from the service by the Bank. Being unaware of this fact, Rama Bhai continued to hand over her savings to him and Keshav misappropriated them. Rama Bhai realized this only when Keshav disappeared from, the scene one day and she sought compensation from the Bank.
Possible Decisions
(a) Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
(b) Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
(c) Rama Bhai cannot blame others for her negligence.
Possible Reasons
(i) Keshav was not an employee of the Bank when the fraud" was committed.
(ii) The Bank was not aware of the special arrangement between Rama Bhai and Keshay.
(iii) It is the Bank's duty to take care of vulnerable customers.
(iv) Rama Bhai should have checked about Keshav in her own interest. Your decision with the reason
Principle: Where there is a transfer of ownership of one thing for the ownership of some other thing it is called an exchange, while the transfer of ownership for consideration of money is called a sale, whereas without consideration it becomes a gift.
Facts: 'A' transfers his house worth `50 lakh to 'B' for a shopping building worth the same amount, as consideration from 'B'.
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
1. The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
3. Volenti non-fit injuria is defence to action in negligence.
Facts:
In a sad incident, 95 fans of a Football club died in a stampede in the Nehru Stadium. The court has decided that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the Police in permitting too many supporters to crowd in one part of the stadium. Now, a suit is filed by Harman and several other people against the Commissioner of State Police. Harman and the other claimants had relatives who were caught up in the Nehru Stadium disaster. The disaster was broadcast on live television, where several claimants alleged, they had witnessed friends and relatives die. Others were present in the stadium or had heard about the events in other ways. All claimed damages for the psychiatric harm they suffered as a result. Determine whether, for the purposes of establishing liability in negligence, those who suffer purely psychiatric harm from witnessing an event at which they are not physically present are sufficiently proximate for a duty to be owed, and thus can be said to be reasonably within the contemplation of the tortfeasor?
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
1. Vicarious liability is when employers are held liable for the torts of their employees that are committed during the course of employment.
2. A servant is a person subject to the command of his master as to the manner in which he shall do his work. The question of whether a person is an employee depends upon the degree of control which the ‘employer’ exercises over the worker.
Facts:
Raja is a travel agent and possessed certain houses, which had an internal communication throughout, and which were used for the purposes of his business. Ramesh looked after the houses and lived in them for this purpose, but he was also a clerk in the Raja’s pay at a set annual salary. He lived in the houses with his wife, a child, and a servant. The case concerned the payment of inhabited house duty. There was a statutory exemption for premises which were occupied by a "servant”or person occupying the premises “for the protection thereof. Raja was claiming the exemption from tax liability by claiming that Ramesh was the servant. Decide whether Ramesh was a servant or an independent contractor?
