Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: Master is liable for the acts of his servant done in the course of his duties.
Facts: X hired an employee Y in his construction business. Y was the property in-charge who received construction material and gave receipts for the material received by him. Z claimed payment for cement supplied to X which was duly received by Y. X denied the payment on the ground that he has only received half of the material and the balance was is utilized by the employee Y.
विकल्प
X is liable for the entire amount
X is liable for the part amount only i.e. for payment of the cost of half of the material
X is not liable for the misconduct/embezzlement of his employee
Z can claim the balance payment only from Y
उत्तर
X is liable for the entire amount
Explanation:
X is liable for the entire amount because the principle clearly states “Master is liable for the acts of his servant done in the course of his duties.” Therefore, it is clear that X will have to bear the consequences of Y’s misdeed done while in the employment of X.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
One of the reasons for recusal of a Judge is that litigants/the public might entertain a reasonable apprehension about his impartiality. As Lord Chief Justice Hewart said: "It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." And therefore, in order to uphold the credibility of the integrity institution, Judge recuses from hearing the case. A Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court, while assuming Office, takes an oath as prescribed under Schedule III to the Constitution of India, that: "… I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws." Called upon to discharge the duties of the Office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, it is only desirable, if not proper, that a Judge, for any unavoidable reason like some pecuniary interest, affinity or adversity with the parties in the case, direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the litigation, family directly involved in litigation on the same issue elsewhere, the Judge being aware that he or someone in his immediate family has an interest, financial or otherwise that could have a substantial bearing as a consequence of the decision in the litigation, etc., to recuse himself from the adjudication of a particular matter. No doubt, these examples are not exhaustive. The simple question is, whether the adjudication by the Judge concerned, would cause reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonably informed litigant and fair-minded public as to his impartiality. Being an institution whose hallmark is transparency, it is only proper that the Judge discharging high and noble duties, at least broadly indicate the reasons for recusing from the case so that the litigants or the well-meaning public may not entertain any misunderstanding. Once reasons for recusal are indicated, there will not be any room for attributing any motive for the recusal. To put it differently, it is part of his duty to be accountable to the Constitution by upholding it without fear or favour, affection or ill- will. Therefore, I am of the view that it is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one's oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a Judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case.
Suppose a situation arises where a recusal by a Judge is used as a means to allow a party to choose its own bench, will it be axiomatic from the passage that such recusal is proper, morally or/and constitutionally?
Mark the best option:
Which Article provides for Uniform Civil Code?
Which Act is associated with "Courts can interpret the rules and regulations."?
The Fundamental Rights to the Constitution are inspired from which of the following Constitution of the world?
Who is the crisis manager-in-chief at the political level during emergencies?
In the question given below are two statements labelled as Assertion (A) and Reason (R). In the context of the two statements, which of the following is correct?
Assertion (A): Vice-President is the member of Rajya Sabha.
Reason (R): Constitution mention the position of Vice-President election.
According to which article, Parliament can make any law with respect to any matter not enumerated in the Concurrent List or State List?
In which year the Finance Commission of India was formed?
Panchayats may not be constituted in a state having a population of not exceeding
Which of the following constitutions when framed did not provide for judicial review?
