Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Principle: Damages the money recompense, as far as money can do, for the loss suffered by a person.
Facts: A, an Indian citizen, have a right to vote, was not allowed to cast his vote on the polling booth, by the returning officer. The name of A was mentioned in the voter‘s list. A has also reported at the polling booth in time. However, the candidate in whose favor A would have cast his vote won the election. A filed a suit claiming damages.
Options
A will be entitled to damages
A will not be entitled to damages
A will be entitled to only nominal damages
A will be entitled to exemplary damages
Solution
A will not be entitled to damages
Explanation:
A will not be entitled to damages because he has not suffered any loss. The principle states that a person who suffers a loss is to be recompensated with money as far as money can do. A did not suffer any loss by being prevented from voting. Also, the candidate in whose favor A wanted to vote won.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Legal Principle: Negligence is the absence of care by one party which results in some damage to another. Damage is an essential ingredient to constitute a tort of negligence.
Fact Situation: Mistry left his ladder on the public road while unloading it from a truck when he went to open the shutters of his shop. Saini who was riding his motorcycle had to swerve hard to avoid hitting the ladder as he came with speed on the road. Saini fell down but was miraculously not injured.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
In most cases, a threat of violence made over the telephone cannot constitute an assault. Which of the following most accurately explains why not?
Which Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects which right...?
The railway authorities negligently allowed a train to be overcrowded. In consequence, a legitimate passenger Mr. X got his pocket picked. Choose the appropriate answer.
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: An unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over, or in connection with it, is a nuisance in law of tort.
Facts: During the scarcity of onions, long queues were made outside the defendant's shop who has a license to sell fruits and vegetables used to sell only 1 kg of onion per ration card. The queues extended on to the highway and also caused some obstruction to the neighboring shops. The neighboring shopkeepers filed a suit for nuisance against the defendant.
Which one of the following decisions will be correct in this suit?
PRINCIPLE The Right to private defence entitles you the licence of force in the failure of other options to the extent of harm faced and proportionate resistance likewise.
FACTS X had a snake farm where he used to ·extract venom from the snakes and sell them for medicinal uses. One such neutralised snake entered into Y's property and into his child's nursery. On being tried to be removed the snake got aggravated and was therefore killed by Y's servant. In a suit brought by X against Y.
PRINCIPLE The test as to whether the act done by an officer or agency of the state is a sovereign function or a function done ordinarily is dependent on the fact that an alternative person may also carry out the latter, but the former may only be carried out by the state.
FACTS In a boundary settlement dispute between India and Bangladesh, a certain territory was exchanged in pursuit of a treaty agreement. X's land which lay in the Indian enclave thus got transferred to Bangladesh, which did not recognise his proprietary rights. In a suit against the Indian Government, the likely outcome is
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
Rules:
A. A person is an employee of another if the mode and the manner in which he or she carries out his work is subject to control and supervision of the latter.
B. An employer is required to provide compensation to his or her employees for any injury caused by an accident arising in the course of employment. The words ‘in the course of the employment’ mean in the course of the work which the employee is contracted to do and which is incidental to it.
Facts:
Messers. Zafar Abidi and Co. (Company) manufactures bidis with the help of persons known as ‘pattadrs’. The pattadars are supplied tobacco and leaves by the Company and are required to roll them into bidis and bring the bidis back to the Company. The pattadars are free to roll the bidis either in the factory or anywhere else they prefer. They are not bound to attend the factory for any fixed number of bidis. The Company verifies whether the bidis adhere to the specified instructions or not pays the pattadars on the basis of the number of bids that are found to be of right quality. Aashish Mathew is one of the pattadars of the Company. He was hit by a car just outside the precinct of the factory while he was heading to have lunch in a nearby food-stall. Aashish Mathew has applied for compensation from the Company.
If the pattadars were compulsorily required to work in the factory for a minimum number of hours every day, then the Company would have been liable to pay compensation to Aashish Mathew if the latter:
