Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
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?
Options
As B is a Bank Manager and not a judge, this principle is inapplicable.
Since the suspected theft was on the bank premises, the manager is the only competent person to enquire about. Hence, the principle is not applicable.
Since B is the employer of A, B should not be conducting the enquiry on the basis of the given principle.
The principle will be applicable, only if the theft committed by A was in relation to the car.
Solution
Since B is the employer of A, B should not be conducting the inquiry on the basis of the given principle.
Explanation:
Nemo iudex in causa sua (or Nemo iudex in sua causa) is a Latin phrase that means, literally, "no-one should be a judge in his own case." It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest. In the case presented before us the person who is stealing, his employee is made the judge of this theft naturally he will not hold his boss guilty so according to the above-given principle. Option 'Since B is the employer of A, B should not be conducting the inquiry on the basis of the given principle'. is correct
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Consists of legal proposition(s)/ principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this Section. In other words, in answering these questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every question.
Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest in the study of law, research aptitude, and problem-solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of the law.
Therefore, to answer a question, the principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.
Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Nothing is an offence which is done in madness.
Facts: A, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill B. B to save his life kills A.
Principle: Inducing any animal to move or to change its motion and thereby intentionally causing fear of injury or annoyance to others by such act, is an offence of use of criminal force.
Facts: X incites his dog to chase and run after his neighbour Y, to teach Y to stay away from him. The act is done without neighbour‘ consent and against his will
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option
Principle: When a person consented to an act to be done by another, he cannot claim any damages resulting from doing that act, provided the act done is the same for which consent is given.
Facts: 'P' submitted written consent to a surgeon 'S' for undergoing a surgical operation for removal of appendicitis. The surgeon while doing surgery also removed the gall bladder of 'A':
A loud bass beat that can be heard through an apartment wall (from another apartment) at midnight can be classified as
Defamation involves:
Negligence involves:
Qui facit per alium facit per se stands for
PRINCIPLE Res ipsa loquitur reverses the burden of proof, creating a rebuttable presumption of the guilt of the defendant in situations where the default of the defendant seems apparent.
FACTS X, a truck driver, crashed into Y for no fault of his while trying to save Z, a student who was loitering in school uniform. Based on the facts above, Y inquires the presumption of negligence shall be in favour of
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.
Principle: A person has no legal remedy for an injury caused by an act to which he has consented.
Facts: 'R', a cricket enthusiast, purchases a ticket to watch a T20 match organized by the Indian Premier League (IPL). During the match, a ball struck for six hits 'R' on his body and injures him. He sues IPL for compensation for the medical expenses.
Which of the following derivation is correct?
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.
Principle: There is no liability in tort in cases of inevitable accidents.
Factual Situation: A stranger takes lift in truck. The truck later meets with an accident due to brake failure. The stranger suffered grievous physical injuries and nervous shock. He filed a suit to claim compensation from the truck's owner. DECISION:
