Important MCQ's Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Q 1. The Litigant's advocate had withdrawn the application, which was preferred before the Court, without intimating the litigant. The litigant came to know about such withdrawal only after a year. Thereafter, he sought to prefer an application along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 425 days, however, the application was rejected by the Court. Decide.

a. The Court has rightly rejected the delay condonation application as the delay was not sufficiently explained by the litigant.

b. Withdrawal of the application by the advocate without informing the litigant is the sufficient cause for the maintainability of the delay condonation application.

c. The Court should not see the length of the delay if the delay was sufficiently explained by the litigant.

d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that a delay in filing an application should be condoned if it has been sufficiently explained, regardless of the length of the delay.

Examine 'Cause Of Delay' & Not 'Length Of Delay'; Condone Delay If There's Sufficient Cause : Supreme Court

Q 2. The High Court while exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC had exempted the convict from surrendering. Decide whether the High Court can exempt the convict from surrendering before authorities despite his conviction.

a. Yes, the High Court has wide power under Section 482 CrPC to even exempt a convict from surrendering.

b. The extraordinary power conferred upon the High Court can be exercised to even exempt a convict from surrendering.

c. The extraordinary power conferred upon the High Court can not be exercised to restrain the enforcement of the lawful order passed under the Code.

d. Both (a) and (b)

Answer: Option (c)

Explanation: Recently, the Supreme Court observed that it would be impermissible for the High Court to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to exempt a convict from the requirement of surrendering in a particular case despite concurrent findings of conviction.

High Court Cannot Exempt Convict From Surrendering In Exercise Of S.482 CrPC Power: Supreme Court Disagrees With Earlier Judgment

Q 3. The High Court directed the Police to register a complaint under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code against the litigant for filing a false affidavit before the Court. However, it was contended by the litigant that mere denial of the averments made by the opposite party or making inaccurate statements would not amount to perjury. Decide.

a. The litigant can be said to have committed an offence of perjury when he deliberately makes false submissions before the court.

b. Denial of the contentions made by the opposite party would not amount to committing an offence of perjury.

c. The complaint under Section 193 IPC cannot be directed to be registered unless the court finds it is in the interest of justice.

d. All of the Above

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: While quashing a perjury proceeding against a litigant, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (Aug. 13) laid down the yardsticks which should be fulfilled for initiating proceedings for the offence of perjury under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court said that denial simpliciter of the averments made by the opposite party without any deliberate falsehood cannot be treated as perjury.

S. 193 IPC | When Can Perjury Proceedings Be Initiated Against A Litigant? Supreme Court Explains

Q 4. A sale deed was to be executed within three months of the date of the agreement which had the validity of five years. Since the sale deed was not executed within the stipulated period of three months, therefore a suit for specific performance of the contract was filed by the litigant against the opposite party beyond the limitation period of three years. The suit was dismissed on the grounds of limitation. The dismissal on the ground of limitation was contended by the litigant contending that the period of limitation of three years for filing a suit for specific performance would not be reckoned from the date of agreement but from the date of the validity of the agreement. Decide.

a. Performance of the contract is dependent upon the validity of the agreement.

b. A three-year limitation period for filing a suit for specific performance of the contract shall be calculated from the date of performance of a contract and not from the date of expiry of the agreement's validity.

c. The period of limitation would be counted from the date of the expiry of the agreement's validity.

d. Both (a) and (c)

Answer: Option (b)

Explanation: The Supreme Court recently held that the limitation period for a specific performance suit will run from the date fixed for the performance and not from the expiry of the validity of the agreement. The court said it is the date of performance of the contract which is necessarily be culled out from the agreement which determines the period of limitation, and the period of limitation would be counted from the date of the performance of the contract.

Specific Performance Suit's Limitation Period Runs From Date For Performance & Not From Expiry Of Agreement's Validity : Supreme Court

Q 5. The Complainant claimed to have advanced a loan amount of Rs.2 Lakhs to the respondent/accused to be returned within six months from the date of execution of the agreement. It was also claimed by the complainant that he had received a signature blank cheque from the accused for security purposes, however, neither the complainant was able to show details of the loan advance nor he was able to show when he received the signature blank cheque. Decide the liability of the drawer/accused under the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881 on account of a cheque being dishonored by the bank.

a. Once the signed cheque is presented to the payee than a presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act would be attracted, and it would be immaterial whether the complainant was able to show details of the loan advanced to the drawer/accused.

b. Presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable and if the drawer proves that the loan was not advanced by the complainant than no liability under the NI Act could be imposed on the drawer/accused.

c. Inability of the complainant to show the details of a loan account and contradiction regarding the date of receiving of a cheque would go against the complainant.

d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal in a cheque dishonor case by taking note of certain contradictions in the statements of the complainant, as well as his inability to show the financial capacity to advance the loan as well as the lack of acknowledgment of the loan in the Income Tax returns.

S. 138 NI Act | 'Capacity To Give Loan Not Shown, Contradictions In Statements': Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal In Cheque Dishonour Case

Q 6. In an International Commercial Arbitration, an award was passed in a foreign currency, which needs to be converted into Indian Rupees since one of the parties to the Arbitration was an Indian National. Decide what would be the correct and appropriate date to determine the foreign exchange rate for converting the award amount expressed in foreign currency to Indian rupees.

a. The relevant date for determining the conversion rate of foreign awards expressed in foreign currency is the date when the award becomes enforceable.

b. The relevant date for determining the conversion rate of foreign awards expressed in foreign currency is the date on which objections regarding the enforceability of an award were finally decided.

c. Both (a) and (b)

d. None of the above

Answer: Option (c)

Explanation: The Supreme Court said that the relevant date for determining the conversion rate of foreign awards expressed in foreign currency is the date when the award becomes enforceable. It was held that the award is deemed to be enforceable from the date on which the objections against its enforceability are finally decided.

How To Determine Conversion Of Arbitral Award In Foreign Currency To Indian Currency? Supreme Court Explains

Q 7. The allegation labeled against the accused was that he published a derogatory video insulting a member of a scheduled caste. However, the insult was not based on the caste identity of the complainant. A case was registered under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. Decide whether the accused could be held liable under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.

a. The accused would not be liable as there was no intention on the part of the accused to insult the complainant based on his identity.

b. Not every intentional insult or intimidation of a member of an SC/ST community will result in a feeling of caste-based humiliation.

c. Both (a) and (b)

d. None of the Above

Answer: Option (c)

Explanation: The Supreme Court on Friday (August 20) held that mere insult of a member of a Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) is not an offence under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 unless the accused had the intention to humiliate based on caste identity.

Mere Insult To SC/ST Member Not Offence Under SC/ST Act Unless Intent Was To Humiliate Based On Caste Identity: Supreme Court

Q 8. An accused was given bail in multiple cases but languishing in jail due to his inability to find multiple sureties. Decide whether the accused is entitled to relief if he furnished only two sureties instead of multiple. 

a. Yes, the accused would be entitled to relief as where multiple sureties are to be furnished, the court must grant an order "which would protect the person's fundamental right under Article 21.

b. The personal bonds and sureties executed by him in one case can't hold good in other cases as well.

c. Accused can't continue to suffer incarceration because of his inability to furnish sureties in multiple cases.

d. Both (a) and (c)

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Supreme Court held that if an accused, involved in multiple cases, is enlarged on bail and is unable to find multiple sureties, the court must balance the requirement of sureties with his right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. The Court allowed the writ petition which prayed that the personal bonds and sureties executed by him in one case shall hold good in other cases as well.

If Accused Given Bail In Multiple Cases Is Unable To Find Sureties, Condition Of Multiple Sureties Be Balanced With Article 21 : Supreme Court

Q 9. An employee was appointed temporarily and continued to provide services for decades similar to that of the regular employees. He received the same benefits as received by the regular employees. However, he was denied the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission because he was appointed temporarily without any statutory backing. Decide.

a. Employee will not be entitled to claim benefits of pay commission as he was not a regular employee.

b. Employee will be entitled to claim benefits of pay commission because of the fact he performed the duties and received the benefits indistinguishable from the regular employee.

c. Once it is established that the employee appointed temporarily, performs the role and responsibilities of a regular employee for a long time and receives the same benefit as that of a regular employee, then such an employee no longer remains a temporary employee and should be considered as a regular employee.

d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The Supreme Court observed that the employees who were performing the duties indistinguishable from the regular government employees could not be deprived of the benefits accorded to the government employees.

'Temporary' Employees Working For Decades Like Regular Govt Employees Can't Be Denied Equal Benefits: Supreme Court

Q 10. The allegation labeled against the appellants was that they failed to make payment towards the sale of horse grains and oats over a period of time supplied by the complainant. Upon a private complaint, a magistrate issued a process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. against the appellants for an offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC. Decide whether an offence of Criminal Breach Of Trust u/s 406 IPC was made out in this case.

a. No, because the entrustment of the property being a sine quo non for the offence of criminal breach of trust is absent in the present case.

b. Once the property in the goods passes to the purchaser, it cannot be said that the purchaser was entrusted with the property of the seller.

c. Without entrustment of property, there cannot be any criminal breach of trust

d. Both (a) and (b)

Answer: Option (d)

Explanation: The court held that since there was no entrustment of property (being a basic requirement for the offence of criminal breach of trust), therefore there cannot be an offence made out under Section 406 IPC.

High Time Police Officers Are Given Training On Distinction Between 'Cheating' & 'Criminal Breach Of Trust': Supreme Court

(For queries or feedback, the author can be contacted at yash@livelaw.in)