Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option
Principle: The concept of natural justice is against bias and for the right to a fair hearing. While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, and it has largely been replaced and extended by the general ‘duty to act fairly’.
Facts: ‘X’, a male employee of a company was dismissed by the employer just on the basis of a complaint by ‘Y’, a female employee of the company that ‘X’ was trying to be too friendly with her and often requested her to accompany him to the canteen. Is the dismissal of ‘X’ valid?
पर्याय
No, because the employer did not give a chance to ‘X’ to explain his side, thereby violated the principles of natural justice
Yes, moral law is antique and therefore, not applicable in modern times, therefore the termination is valid and no violations of the principles of natural justice occurred.
Yes, because men are not supposed to behave improperly with women and hence there is no violation of any principles of law
No, because in modern times this type of behaviour is common
उत्तर
No, because the employer did not give a chance to ‘X’ to explain his side, thereby violated the principles of natural justice
Explanation:
No, because the employer did not give a chance to 'X' to explain his side, thereby violated the principles of natural justice.
Natural justice mandates that X should have been given a fair chance to explain his side before a decision was taken and was dismissed by his employer. There was no 'duty to act fairly' and the principle of natural justice has been violated.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: An offer made by one party when accepted by another makes it a contract.
Transactions:
1. P offered to sell his house for Rs. 20 lakhs to R; R told P that he was interested to buy a house for 15 lakhs only.
2. C was looking for a house for not more than 25 lakhs; P informed C that his house was available for 20 lakhs.
3. K wanted to buy some old furniture; L told K that he would sell his furniture for Rs. 10, 000.
4. R advertised to sell his old car for a price of Rs. Three lakhs; S found the advertisement and offered to buy it for Rs. 2 lakhs 50 thousand; R agrees to sell it to S.
Which among the above is actually a contract?
Legal Principle: It is an offense to obstruct a public servant in the due discharge of his duty. The right of private defense is available to protect one’s person and property.
Fact Situation: Sidhu comes to the rescue of his uncle who is sought to be taken into a car by some men. In the process, he causes injury to some of them. Later, it turns out that the men were police persons in plain clothes trying to enforce a warrant against his uncle.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Legal Principle: One of the principles of ‘Natural Justice’ states that, “No person shall be a judge in his own cause”.
Facts: A, a driver of B, a Branch Manager of ABC Bank was caught, suspecting theft, in the bank premises. The Bank management instituted an enquiry and made B the enquiry officer.
Which of the following statements is correct?
Andrew throws a baseball towards Barry, with whom he is playing pitch and catch. Andrew’s aim is bad and the ball hits Cassandra, who is walking nearby.
PRINCIPLE Nuisance is the interference in the enjoyment of the property.
FACTS Pizzeria, a small cafeteria selling namesake used to run a wood-fired oven. The resulting smoke caused a lot of smoke in the neighbourhood and there were a number of complaints from the locals who had not witnessed such an oven. The food inspector taking cognizance of these reports asked the restaurant to shut down the oven. The owner who had earlier ran a similar establishment in Italy did not comply. Is Pizzeria committing a nuisance?
PRINCIPLE The use of force with the intent to cause harm, or annoy or induce· fear is termed as the Torts of battery.
FACTS A group of construction workers was negligently handling bricks bycatch and throw. Simmons was passing by the site where one such brick fell on Simmons and he brought a case of battery against the contractor under whose employment the workmen were carrying out the construction.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE 'Free consent' defined as - Consent is said to free when it is not caused by
I. coercion as defined in Section 15
II. under influence, as defined in Section 16
III. fraud, as defined in Section 17, or
Iv. misrepresentation, as defined in Section 18
v. mistake, subject to the provisions of Sections 20, 21 and 22 Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, under the influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. 'Fraud' is defined in which Section?
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) Consumable goods that are not fit for consumption are not marketable.
(2) A consumer shall not suffer on account of unmarketable goods.
(3) A seller is liable for knowingly selling unmarketable goods.
(4) A manufacturer shall be liable for the quality of his products.
Facts:
Ram bought a Coca Cola bottle from Shama's shop. Back at home, the server opened the bottle and poured the drink into the glasses of Ram and his friend Tom. As Tom started drinking, he felt irritation in his throat. Immediately, Ram and Tom took the sample to test and found nitric acid in the content. Ram filed a suit against Shama, Coca Cola company and the bottler, Kishen and Co.
Suggested Decisions
(a) Ram cannot get compensation
(b) Tom can get compensation
(c) Both Ram and Tom can get compensation
Suggested Reasons
(i) Shama did not know the contents of sealed bottle.
(ii) Ram did not actually suffer though he bought the bottle.
(iii) Tom did not buy the bottle.
(iv) Coca Cola company is responsible since it supplied the concentrate.
(v) Kishen & Co is responsible since it added water, sugar, etc., and sealed the bottle.
(vi) Shama is responsible for selling the defective product. Your decision with the reason,
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
1. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do
2. Defendant’s duty of care depends of the reasonable foreseeability of injury which may be caused to the plaintiff on breach of duty.
Factual situation: The defendants employees of the Municipal Corporation opened a manhole in the street and in the evening left the manhole open an covered it by a canvass shelter, unattended and surrounded by warning lamps. The plaintiff, an eight years old boy, took one of the lamps into the shelter and was playing with it there when he stumbled over it and fell into the manhole. A violent explosion followed and the plaintiff suffered burn injuries. The defendants are DECISION:
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 a defense to action in negligence.
Facts:
A team of scientists imported a virus for the purpose of research. They carried out research on their premises into foot and mouth disease in cattle, and they were apparently responsible for the escape of some virus. As a result, there was an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the area, and the Minister of Agriculture ordered two markets to be closed. This caused some of the traders, who were two firms of auctioneers, to suffer a loss of profits on a total of six market days, from which they sought to recover. Decide whether the scientists owed a duty of care towards the traders?
