Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: The existence of all the alleged facts is relevant whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.
Facts: A, a citizen of England, is accused of committing the murder of B in India by taking part in a conspiracy hatched in England.
पर्याय
The facts that A accused of commission of murder and of conspiracy are relevant facts
Only the fact that A is accused of committing the murder of B is relevant
Only the fact that A is accused of the conspiracy hatched in England is relevant
A citizen of England cannot be tried in India
उत्तर
The facts that A accused of commission of murder and of conspiracy are relevant facts
Explanation:
The facts that A is accused of commission of murder and of conspiracy are relevant facts based on the principle: “Existence of all the alleged facts is relevant whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.” It doesn’t matter whether A was in India or England.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: One who dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use or sells any movable property belonging to another, is guilty of the offence of misappropriation.
Facts: 'A' takes property belonging to 'Z' out of Z's possession, in good faith, believing when he takes it, that the property belongs to himself. Subsequently, 'A', on discovering his mistake, without disclosing the actual facts, dishonestly sells the property to a stranger.
Mark the best option:
Fact: Ganesh had a ferocious dog as his pet. The dog used to terrorize people in the neighborhood by attacking the pet animals. One day the dog started attacking Bipasha’s cat on the road and followed the cat into Bipasha’s house and continued attacking her cat. Her cat was seriously wounded and was bleeding. Bipasha made several attempts to chase the dog away but it was of no use, so she got hold of a kitchen knife and inflicted a severe wound on the dog’s body. After this, the dog ran off. The dog subsequently died because of the wound. Ganesh sued Bipasha for damages saying that she should have called him for help.
Principle:
- Every person has a right to defend his own person, property or possession against unlawful harm.
- The person may use reasonable force in order to protect his person, property or possession
- However, the force employed should be proportionate to the apprehended danger.
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: No remedy lies in law where an injury is caused to a person without any infringement of his legal right.
Fact Situation: Ashutosh started a tuition Centre right next to the one being run for the past twenty years by Gulshan. After Ashutosh started his Centre, a large number of students shifted from Gulshan’s tuition Centre to Ashutosh’s Centre forcing Gulshan to close down his establishment suffering huge losses. Can Gulshan initiate legal action against Ashutosh?
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Aaron points a gun at Bridget and threatens to shoot her. Aaron knows that the gun is not loaded but Bridget does not. Which of the following most accurately states the likely outcome if Bridget sues Aaron alleging assault?
What is the Compensation Act 2006 s 1 has what purpose...
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principle: Vicarious liability is when employers are held liable for the torts committed by their employees during the course of employment.
Factual Situation: New Vision School opened a boarding house (Shivaji House) for boys in the year 2000 for the students having behavioral and emotional difficulties. The claimants in the instant case had resided there between 2000 to 2003, being aged 12 to 15 during that time, under the care of a warden, who was in charge of maintaining discipline and the running of the house. The warden lived in the House, with his disabled wife, and together they were the only two members of staff in the House. His duties were ensuring order, in making sure the children went to bed, went to school, engaged in evening activities, and supervising other staff. It had been alleged by some of the boys that the warden had sexually abused them, including inappropriate advances and taking trips alone with them. A criminal investigation took place some ten years later, resulting in the warden being sentenced to seven years imprisonment. Following this, the victims brought an action for personal injury against ~he employers, alleging that they were vicariously liable. Whether the employers of the warden may be held vicariously liable for their employee's intentional sexual abuse of school boys placed under his care?
PRINCIPLE Trespass is the unauthorized entry through the person or tangible object into the property of another. The rights of property exist on the surface, aerially and in the subterrain.
FACTS Kumari and Shravan lived in houses interspersed by the plot of Shantanu. Kumari and Shravan set-up a walkie talkie connection by setting up their transmitte~s facing each other. When Shantanu came to know about the arrangement, he filed a suit of trespass stating that the same was a case of trespass as signals could reach each other only by crossing his plot.
A person is said to be vicariously liable when
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?
